Appeal No. 2001-0700
Application 09/154,938
rejection. 3,4
DISCUSSION
The Swedish reference discloses a funnel having two
threaded engaging portions 1 and 2 with respective
stop/sealing shoulders 3 and 4 for engaging and sealing
against threaded container fill openings of different size.
Smith discloses a funnel which “is advantageously one
3In the final rejection (Paper No. 6), claims 1 and 3
also stood rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph,
as being indefinite. Upon reconsideration (see page 2 in the
answer), the examiner has withdrawn this rejection.
4 On page 4 in the answer, the examiner refers to U.S.
Patent No. 2,703,670 to Voight to support his position. This
patent, however, does not appear in the statement of the
appealed rejection. Where a reference is relied on to support
a rejection, whether or not in a minor capacity, there is no
excuse for not positively including the reference in the
statement of the rejection. See In re Hoch, 428 F.2d 1341,
1342 n.3, 166 USPQ 406, 407 n.3 (CCPA 1970); and MPEP §
706.02(j). Accordingly, we have not considered the teachings
of Voight in reviewing the merits of the appealed rejection.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007