Appeal No. 2004-1815
Application No. 09/781,582 Page 11
“the exterior section of the spout internal surface having a
radius differing from a radius of the exterior section of the
mouth internal surface” (claim 1).
The examiner refers to Figure 3 of Ness ‘561 and asserts that
“the convex perspective of wall 17 serves as an external section
to the inner surface of the upper tapering section of compartment
16" (answer, page 19). However, claim 1 refers to “the exterior
section of the spout inner surface” (emphasis supplied) as having
a different radius than the “radius of the exterior section of
the mouth internal surface.” As explained by appellants in the
reply brief, the examiner’s reference to the radius along wall
(17) of Ness ’561 represents a misunderstanding of the claim
limitation regarding the exterior section of the spout internal
surface. In this regard, we note that the inner wall (17)
portion of the internal surface of compartment 16 of Ness ‘561
represents an interior section of the internal surface thereof,
not an exterior section of the internal surface. Moreover, we
agree with appellants that the examiner has not established that
Ness ‘561 includes two compartments tapering at an upper portion
thereof as claimed. While the examiner asserts that opposing
sides of the container of Figure 3 of Ness ‘561 taper at the
location of the threads (24), we agree with appellants that the
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007