Appeal No. 2004-1271 Page 2
Application No. 09/370,913
Independent claim 1 is directed to a lid for use with a bowl and recites a venting
feature in terms of the lid's interaction with the bowl, but does not affirmatively recite the
bowl as a separate element of the claim. Independent claims 9 and 19 are directed to the
entire container, including both the lid and the bowl, and also recite the venting feature.
In our decision, we expressly found that the Dokoupil container "only vents during
the process of securing the lid 24 to the container 12 and not necessarily when the lid 24 is
secured or loosely placed on the container." (Decision, p. 8.) However, because claim 1
was "directed to the lid, per se, and not the combination of the lid with a bowl" (Decision, p.
8), we held that claim 1 was inherently anticipated by the Dokoupil lid because
such a lid was "clearly capable of being loosely placed on a suitable bowl" so as to provide
venting. (Decision, pp. 8-9.) In view of the appellants grouping of claims 1, 3 to 7, 9 to 17
and 19 to 24, we affirmed the rejections of claims 3 to 7, 9 to 17, and 19 to 24, which the
appellants had grouped together with claim 1 in their appeal brief.
The request for rehearing is limited to claims 9 to 17 and 19 to 24, which are
directed to the combination of a lid and a bowl. Specifically, the appellants request that we
reverse the rejections of claims 9 to 17 and 19 to 24 in view of our express finding that the
examiner's only substantive reason for rejecting those claims (i.e., that the Dokoupil
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007