Appeal No. 2002-1523
Application 09/524,811
the neck of a container for storing and pouring liquids. While
acknowledging that such fittings are generally known in the prior
art (e.g., Fig. 1), appellant indicates on page 2 of the specifi-
cation that the prior art fittings suffer from the problem known
as “double pour.” On page 5 of the specification, appellant
notes that he has discovered that the length of the slot in the
pouring spout of the fitting and the relative size of the drain-
back hole associated therewith are critical to preventing or
minimizing double pouring. More particularly, appellant indicates
that he has found that by shortening the length of the slot and
decreasing the area of the drainback hole, double pouring is
minimized. A copy of independent claim 1, representative of
appellant’s invention, can be found on page 5 of the brief
(Paper No. 8).
The sole prior art reference of record relied upon by
the examiner in rejecting the appealed claims is:
Arnold et al. (Arnold) 5,855,299 Jan. 5, 1999
Claims 1 through 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Arnold. While the examiner
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007