Appeal No. 2001-0700
Application 09/154,938
manufactured. Moreover, viewing the references from a
different perspective, the funnel disclosed by Smith responds
to all of the limitations in the appealed claims except for
those in claims 1 and 6 requiring a plurality of engaging
portions for engagement with or attachment to a plurality of
different size fill opening containers, and the Swedish
reference would have suggested providing the Smith funnel with
such a plurality of engagement portions for the advantage,
expressly stated in the Swedish reference, of permitting
attachment to a plurality of different sized fill opening
containers. 5
Thus, the combined teachings of the applied references
fully support the examiner’s conclusion that the differences
between the subject matter recited in the appealed claims and
the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole
5 Where a rejection is predicated on two references each
containing pertinent disclosure which has been pointed out to
an applicant, it is of no significance, but merely a matter of
exposition, that the rejection is stated to be on A in view of
B instead of on B in view of A, or to term one reference
primary and the other secondary. In re Bush, 296 F.2d 491,
131 USPQ 263 (CCPA 1961).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007