Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
and does not qualify as a declaration because it does not include
on the same document the warnings of the consequences of willful
false statements set forth in 37 CFR § 1.68. This being the case,
the Long “affidavit” may not properly be accorded evidentiary
status. See In re Mehta, 347 F.2d 859, 866, 146 USPQ 284, 289
(CCPA 1965), In re Hunter, 167 F.2d 1006, 1009, 77 USPQ 610, 612-13
(CCPA 1948) and Ex parte Meyer, 6 USPQ2d 1966, 1968 (BPAI 1988).
We therefore will treat Mr. Long’s statements as argument in
responding to the points raised therein.
The standing rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 of claims
1-14, 16-20, 23-27, 31, 32, 37-39 and 42
Considering first the § 103 rejection of claim 1, there
appears to be no dispute that Sander, the examiner’s primary
reference, discloses a tamper-evident closure with a resealable
pour spout of the type generally disclosed and claimed by
appellant. With respect to claim 1, the examiner considers
(answer, pages 3-4) that Sander “lacks the locking member being
hook shaped and continuous.”2 The examiner contends, however, that
2Implicit in this position is the examiner’s determination
that claim 1 requires that the locking member be “hook shaped”
and/or “continuous,” a position with which we do not agree. What
claim 1 does require with respect to the at least one arcuate
projection is that said projection comprises a locking member
(continued...)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007