Appeal No. 2001-0700
Application 09/154,938
which “should be disregarded in its entirety” (reply brief,
page 4).
The question of whether the explanation of the appealed
rejection in the examiner’s answer (as compared with the
explanation in the final rejection) constitutes an improper
new ground of rejection is one which is not directly connected
with the merits of the rejection. Hence, it is reviewable by
petition to the Commissioner, rather than by appeal to this
Board (see In re Hengehold, 440 F.2d 1395, 1403-1404, 169 USPQ
473, 479 (CCPA 1971)), and thus will not be further addressed
in this decision.
As for the merits of the rejection, whether or not the
Swedish reference fairly teaches that the funnel disclosed
therein has a “unitary” body, Smith would have provided the
artisan with ample suggestion or motivation to make the
Swedish funnel of a unitary plastic body for the uncontested
self-evident benefits noted by the examiner, i.e., to gain a
funnel which is lightweight, corrosion-resistant and easily
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007