Appeal No. 2004-1815
Application No. 09/781,582 Page 16
examiner does not include a second compartment formed separate
from the first compartment as required in claim 19 but rather a
dual compartment container that relies on a common linear
interior wall (94) for formation of an integrally formed
container cup having dual compartments that are not separately
formed. Moreover, appellants argue that those dual compartments
of the Figure 6 embodiment of claim 19 do not include tapering
upper portions, one of which compartment tapered upper portion
forms a spout having a curved convex interior wall and the other
of said compartment tapered upper portions constructed to form a
mouth having a curved concave inner wall as required by claim 19.
While appellants refer to item (96) in the lid 84 of the Figure 6
embodiment of Ness ’289, the examiner has not fairly explained
how that structure corresponds to the structure required by
independent claim 19. In this regard, we also note that the
examiner’s reliance on Ward and Smith in an attempt to suggest a
modification of Ness ’289 in a manner so as to arrive at the
claimed subject matter is not found persuasive for reasons
maintained by appellants (reply brief, pages 16-18). The
drinking glass of Ward and bowl of Smith hardly seem brimming
with a particularized suggestion for a modification of the
disparate dual compartment containers of Ness’ 289. The drinking
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007