Appeal No. 2004-1249
Application 09/857,086
Claims 1 through 3 and 5 through 10 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Smith.
Claims 1, 4, 7, 8 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Philips in view of Smith.
Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 17 and 20) and to the answer (Paper No. 19) for the
respective positions of the appellant and the examiner regarding
the merits of these rejections.2
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 4
and 5
Independent claim 1 recites a plastic receptacle with lid
comprising, inter alia, box-shaped projections on the lid.
Claims 4 and 5 depend from claim 1 and respectively define the
projections as having “a substantially trapezoidal base area in a
top facing view” and “a substantially wave-shaped base area in a
top facing view” (emphasis added). The examiner views these
2
2 Although the statement in the answer (see page 4) of the
last of the examiner’s rejections includes Philips but not Smith,
the accompanying explanation of the rejection indicates that the
omission of Smith was inadvertent.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007