Appeal No. 2004-1249
Application 09/857,086
42, and a surrounding terracing in the form of frustoconical
camming wall 32. The frustoconical camming wall 32, however,
does not in any way, shape or form amount to a surrounding
terracing having box-shaped projections arranged thereon and
having approximately the same width as the box-shaped projections
as recited in claim 1. Moreover, Smith’s box-shaped projections
(lugs 41-42) do not extend up to the upper edge of the
encompassing area (annular rim 35) as also recited in the claim.
Thus, the examiner’s position that Smith is anticipatory with
respect to the subject matter recited in claim 1 is not well
taken.
Consequently, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims
2, 3 and 5 through 10, as being anticipated by Smith.
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejections of claims 1, 4, 7, 8 and 10
as being unpatentable over Morris in view of Smith and as being
unpatentable over Philips in view of Smith
Morris and Philips disclose receptacle-lid combinations
which are conceded by the examiner (see pages 3 and 4 in the
answer) to lack response to the limitations in independent claim
1 requiring the lid to comprise box-shaped projections (6) which
are arranged on a surrounding terracing (7) having approximately
the same width as the box-shaped projections and which extend up
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007