Appeal No. 2001-0700
Application 09/154,938
one of ordinary skill in the art “to make the apparatus of
[the] Swedish [reference] from plastic as a unitary, one piece
mold[ing] as, for example, taught by Smith, in order to
provide a lightweight, easily molded and non corrosive
material” (answer, pages 3 and 4).
The appellants do not dispute that Smith would have
suggested making the Swedish funnel of plastic. They do
argue, however, that the rejection is unsound because the
examiner’s determination that the Swedish reference meets the
limitations in claims 1 and 6 requiring the funnel body to be
“unitary” is speculative and in fact inconsistent with the
fair teachings of the reference. The appellants also contend
that to the extent the examiner is now relying on Smith as
being suggestive of a
funnel having a “unitary plastic body” as recited in claims 1
and 6, the rejection is an improper new ground of rejection
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007