Ex Parte REISINGER et al - Page 2




              Appeal No. 2002-2065                                                                 Page 2                
              Application No. 09/398,688                                                                                 


                                                    BACKGROUND                                                           
                     The appellants’ invention relates to a vessel of the type used to contain liquids.                  
              An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 16,                     
              which has been reproduced below.                                                                           
                     The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                     
              appealed claims are:                                                                                       
              UK Patent Application (GB 032)            2001032                      Jan. 24, 1979                       
              German Patent Publication1 (GE 085) 3937085                            May 10, 1990                        
              European Patent Application (EP 817) 0614817A1                         Sep. 14, 1994                       
                     Claims 2 and 5-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable                        
              over GB 032 in view of GE 085 or EP 817.                                                                   
                     Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                       
              the appellants regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the Answer                        
              (Paper No. 14) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection, and to                   
              the Brief (Paper No. 13) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 15) for the appellants’ arguments                      
              thereagainst.                                                                                              






                     1Our understanding of this foreign language document was obtained from a PTO translation, a         
              copy of which is enclosed.                                                                                 






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007