Appeal No. 2004-1815
Application No. 09/781,582 Page 19
§ 103(a) rejection of claims 19-28, 32-34 and 49 over Ness ‘289
in combination with Ward and Smith on this record.
In addition to Ness ‘289, Ward and Smith, the examiner
additionally applies Stegath in a § 103(a) rejection of dependent
claim 29, Simmons in a § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 30,
and Newarski in a § 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 31.
However, the examiner does not explain how those additionally
applied references make up for the deficiency in the teachings of
Ness ‘289, Ward and Smith. Thus, we will not sustain the
separate § 103(a) rejections of dependent claims 29-31 on this
record.
Our disposition of the examiner’s § 103(a) rejection of
claims 35-37, 50 and 51 over Ness ‘289 is another matter. Here,
the examiner has reasonably explained how Ness ’289 teaches a
container including a lid as a part thereof (Figure 6) that
corresponds to the container of independent claim 35 but for the
claim requirement that “the transverse cross-sectional area of
the second compartment opening being at least three times greater
than the transverse cross-sectional area of the first compartment
opening” (claim 35). As reasonably explained by the examiner,
the spout opening for the compartment for holding a liquid, such
as milk, is taught by Ness ‘289 to be of such a size as to allow
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007