Appeal No. 2004-1815
Application No. 09/781,582 Page 7
out of a first compartment and second consumable out of a second
compartment” (answer, page 8).1 Moreover, in the statement of
the rejection in the answer, the examiner refers us to the
drawing figures of Simmons for an alleged teaching of covering a
mouth and spout together or separately without explaining how
those figures describe a method that corresponds to appellants’
separate and specific sealing, assembling and covering steps.
See page 8 of the answer. Thirteen pages further into the
answer, the examiner tries to explain how the examiner is
considering a portion of the appealed method claim 38 to read on
the disclosure of Simmons by again referring us to the drawing
figures of Simmons, particularly Figure 2, a portion of the
patent specification of Simmons and an earlier Office action
(Paper No. 9). The examiner (answer, page 21) explains2:
Looking at Figure 2, where the spout and mouth abut, as
admitted by Appellant, the mouth and spout are
separately sealed since clearly one cover (e.g. 59a)
remains closed, while the other cover (e.g. 60a)
remains open.
1 The examiner refers to Binter for supporting the notion
that what comes out of the containers must have first been
supplied into the containers of Simmons.
2 See footnote 3 below.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007