Appeal No. 2003-0221
Application 09/670,929
The next rejection for our review is that of claims 1 and 15
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Schuster. In
this instance, the examiner is of the view that Schuster
discloses a container as claimed with a foldable support panel
(12) including a plurality of openings (14, 74) therein to
receive cylindrical objects. As can be seen best in Figures 1
and 4, the support panel (12) extends from a sidewall portion
(20) of the container, spans across an inlet opening thereof, and
includes a terminal edge having means (50, 54) associated
therewith for connecting the terminal edge to the opposite side
of the container.
Appellant’s arguments regarding claim 1 again urge that the
examiner has ignored or disregarded all of the functional
limitations of the claim and that the rejection of this claim
should be reversed on that basis. With respect to claim 15,
appellant asserts that this claim includes a means plus function
element and that the examiner has failed to properly address that
limitation. More particularly, appellant contends (brief, page
11) that the corresponding means pointed to by the examiner in
Schuster is not equivalent to the adhesive strip (28) shown in
appellant’s drawings and discussed in the specification.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007