Appeal No. 1999-0509
Application No. 08/693,585
A copy of the appealed claims is appended to appellants= brief.
The following references are relied upon by the examiner in support of his
rejections under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. ' 103:
Hoffmann 4,416,714 Nov. 22, 1983
Karabedian 4,626,455 Dec. 2, 1986
Dickey 4,923,557 May 8, 1990
In addition to the foregoing references, the examiner relies on certain admitted
prior art, namely Acontainers with recessed portions@ (answer, page 5).
The grounds of rejection are as follows:
1. Claims 22, 23, 25-28 and 32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being
unpatentable over Dickey.
2. Claim 29 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being unpatentable over
Dickey in view of Karabedian.
3. Claims 30 and 31 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being unpatentable
over Dickey in view of Hoffmann.
4. Claims 33 and 34 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being unpatentable
over Dickey in view of the admitted prior art mentioned supra.
5. Claim 35 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. ' 102(b) as being anticipated by
Dickey or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. ' 103 as being unpatentable over Dickey.
Considering first the ' 102(b) rejection of claim 35, it is well established patent
law that for a reference to be properly anticipatory, each and every element of the
rejected claim must be found either expressly described or under the principles of
inherency in the applied reference.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007