Appeal No. 2003-1906
Application No. 09/458,623
(c) claims 10, 26, and 34 over the stated combination of
references further in view of Grant.
Appellants’ brief sets forth six different groups of claims.
However, in addressing the three separate rejections of the
examiner under § 103, appellants do not set forth separate
arguments for any of the claims separately rejected as a group.
Accordingly, the three groups of claims separately rejected by
the examiner stand or fall together.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellants’ arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner’s rejections for essentially the reasons set
forth in the answer, which we incorporate herein, and we add the
following primarily for emphasis.
We consider first the examiner’s rejection under § 103 over
Takanashi in view of Knott and Schreck. Appellants do not
dispute that Takanashi, like appellants, discloses a lid for a
container comprising first and second outer layers of a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007