Appeal No. 2003-0104 Page 6
Application No. 09/659,792
Claims 1, 2 and 5
The appellant argues (brief, p. 5; reply brief, pp. 1-2) that there is no basis to
conclude that a spigot-handle could interact with the handles 38 of Pulli in the manner
claimed. We agree. In that regard, the claimed band into which a spigot-handle may
be maintained hooked by twist on the spigot resulting from weight of a spigot tube and
any beer in the tube acting from a combined center of gravity outwards from the
container, with a spigot spout pointing downwards is not readable on the handles 38 of
Pulli. While the handles 38 of Pulli's insulated container may be a band which in a
general sense would be inherently capable of securing the spigot of a keg tap as
alleged by the examiner (final rejection, p. 3), there is no basis to conclude, and the
examiner has not even alleged, that the handles 38 of Pulli's insulated container are
inherently capable of maintaining a spigot-handle therein hooked by twist on the spigot
resulting from weight of a spigot tube and any beer in the tube acting from a combined
center of gravity outwards from the container, with a spigot spout pointing downwards.
Thus, the claimed band is structurally and functionally different than the handles 38 of
Pulli's insulated container.
Since all the limitations of independent claim 1 and claims 2 and 5 dependent
thereon are not met by Pulli for the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1, 2 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007