Appeal No. 2000-2045 Page 2
Application No. 09/206,253
BACKGROUND
The appellants’ invention relates to a container assembly. An understanding of the
invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 15, which appears in the
appendix to the Brief.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Cornish et al. (Cornish) 4,944,603 Jul. 31, 1990
Bates et al. (Bates) 5,411,295 May 2, 1995
Marino, Jr. et al. (Marino) 5,605,230 Feb. 25, 1997
The prior art set out by the appellants in the specification at page 4, lines 9 and 10, and
page 12, lines 25 and 26 (the related prior art).
Claims 15, 17-19 and 28-34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bates in view of Cornish.
Claims 16 and 22-27 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bates in view of Cornish and the related prior art.
Claims 35 and 36 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Bates in view of Cornish and Marino.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and the
appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer (Paper
No. 11) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and to the Brief
(Paper No. 10) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 12) for the appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007