Appeal No. 1999-0178
Application No. 08/658,849
We do not sustain the examiner’s respective rejections of
appellants’ claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). Our reasoning in
support of this conclusion appears below.
As to the content of claim 1, the sole independent claim
in the application, the examiner relies upon the combined
teachings of Meikle and Reiher. In the Meikle patent, the
examiner focuses upon the oxygen tank (container) 21 and
proposes a modification as to the shape thereof to effect the
claimed “substantially spherical container”. As support for
the aforementioned change, the examiner looks first to the
asserted spherical oxygen containers (bottles) 57 of Reiher
(page 2 of Paper No. 4) and later (answer, page 6) to a
container of Reiher (capsule 18 comprising a shell 21)
preferably spherical in shape (column 4, line 19).
The Reiher patent does not expressly describe a shape for
the oxygen containers or bottles 57. Further, based upon the
support assembly for the bottles (Figures 6 and 9; column 6,
lines 28 through 37), we do not perceive that one having
ordinary skill in the art would have comprehended that the
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007