Appeal No. 2004-0096 Page 2
Application No. 09/785,273
The appellant’s invention relates to a water pail equipped with an air passageway
in the outlet thereof to pass through external air so that the contents contained in the
pail are smoothly exhausted out (specification, page 1). According to appellant, the
invention is an improvement over prior art containers provided with a separate hole
spaced from the outlet (specification, page 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set
forth in the appendix to the appellant’s brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art reference in rejecting the
appealed claims:
Reap 1,676,711 Jul. 10, 1928
Claims 2 and 3 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Reap.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejection, we make reference to the answer
(Paper No. 13) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejection and to
the brief (Paper No. 11) for the appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied Reap patent, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007