Appeal No. 2001-0483 Page 11
Application No. 08/996,842
Even if the examiner were correct that it would have been
obvious from the teachings of Fisher to provide the dispensing
top shown in Figure 5 Harz with means for closing off the
reduced end of the top such would not have arrived at the
claimed invention for the reasons set forth by the appellant
(brief, pp. 13-15). In that regard, Harz does not disclose
all the features of claims 2 and 15 except the means for
closing off the reduced end of the top since Harz does not
disclose the diameter of the opening at the reduced end being
greater than one inch as recited in claims 2 and 15 for the
reasons set forth above with respect to claims 1 and 14.
Furthermore, in this rejection before us in this appeal the
examiner did not determine that such difference would have
been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, a prima facie case of
obviousness has not been established with respect to claims 2
and 15.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 2 and 15 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007