Appeal No. 2004-1271 Page 3
Application No. 09/370,913
lid would have inherently allowed for venting if it were loosely placed on the Dokoupil
container) was without basis.
We have carefully considered the arguments raised by the appellants in their
request for rehearing and those arguments do persuade us that under the facts of this
case, in the interests of justice, it would be appropriate for us to separately consider the
rejections of claims 9 to 17 and 19 to 24. Since Dokoupil's 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, claims 9 to 17 and 19 to 24 (directed to the
combination of a lid with a bowl) are not inherently anticipated by the Dokoupil lid or
obvious therefrom. Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 9 to 12, 15 to
17 and 19 to 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) is reversed and the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 13, 14, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
In light of the foregoing, the appellants' request for rehearing is granted to the extent
the decision of the examiner to reject claims 9 to 12, 15 to 17 and 19 to 22 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) has been reversed and the decision of the examiner to reject claims
13, 14, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 has been reversed. The decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 and 3 to 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) remains affirmed; the
decision of the examiner to reject claims 8, 18 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) remains
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007