Appeal No. 2004-1603
Application No. 09/626,517
specification in its entirety and dependent claims 3, 13 and 21.
On the other hand, the term “sidewalls” recited in claims 1, 2,
20, 28 and 29 includes both “side band members” and projections.
See the specification in its entirety and the claims themselves.
Having the interpreted the claims on appeal as indicated
supra, we agree with the appellants that Apps’ 819, Apps’249 and
Splash do not teach “side band members” having upper edges
directed downwardly at the ends thereof to form a corner band
portion. We also agree with the appellants that the examiner has
not established that Apps ‘249 teaches each sidewall having a
lower edge forming a nesting area as required by claims 28 and 29
and Apps ‘819 teaches double walls as required by claim 28 and
each side wall having a lower edge nesting area for receiving a
corresponding “band member” as required by claim 29. It follows
that the examiner, on this record, fails to establish a prima
facie case of anticipation within the meaning of Section 102(b).
Accordingly, we reverse each of the aforementioned Section 102(b)
rejections.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007