Appeal No. 2004-1249
Application 09/857,086
to the upper edge of the encompassing area (2) of the lid. While
the lids respectively disclosed by Morris and Philips arguably
include a surrounding terracing and an encompassing area, they do
not include any sort of box-shaped projections. The examiner’s
reliance on Smith to cure these deficiencies (see pages 3 and 4
in the answer) is unsound. Although Smith’s lugs 41-42 embody
box-shaped projections, Smith does not teach, and would not have
suggested, arranging these projections on a surrounding terracing
of approximately the same width and extending the projections up
to the upper edge of the encompassing area of the lid. The only
suggestion for selectively combining either Morris or Philips
with Smith so as to arrive at a receptacle-lid combination
meeting the claim 1 limitations in question stems from hindsight
knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claim 1, and dependent claims
4, 7, 8 and 10, as being unpatentable over Morris in view of
Smith, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of the same
claims as being unpatentable over Philips in view of Smith.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007