Appeal No. 2003-0102 Page 11
Application No. 09/543,439
to make the modification proposed by the examiner. Consequently, we cannot sustain
the examiner’s rejection of claims 9-11 as unpatentable over Markert in view of Curry.
We have reviewed the additional teachings of Adamek and find nothing therein which
would have suggested the provision of two flexible end caps on Markert’s container. It
thus follows that we shall also not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 9-11 and
claims 31-33, which also require two flexible end closures, as unpatentable over
Markert in view of Curry and Adamek.
The above-noted shortcoming in the examiner’s combination of Markert in view
of Curry finds no cure in the additional teachings of Sansbury, Bemiss and Adamek.
We therefore also cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 12 as unpatentable
over Markert in view of Curry, Sansbury and Bemiss or the rejection of claims 12 and
34 as unpatentable over Markert in view of Curry, Adamek, Sansbury and Bemiss.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007