Appeal No. 2005-0583
Application No. 10/116,494
position that it is improper to consider the upper half of the
Wilkes or Hayes canister to be a lid. In this regard, the
appellant argues that “a lid will, in general, be lighter than
half of a container” (brief, pages 5 and 7-8). However, there is
no weight or any other limitation in claim 2 which distinguishes
the here claimed lid from the upper canister half of Wilkes or
Hayes. We find, therefore, that dependent claim 2 is anticipated
by Wilkes or Hayes.
The appellant’s argument that neither Wilkes nor Hayes
discloses the venting handle feature of dependent claim 4 is
meritless. As the appellant acknowledges on page 5 of the brief,
Wilkes explicitly teaches that his venting mechanism includes a
handle or knob 136 in the paragraph bridging columns 4 and 5.
Similarly, Hayes repeatedly refers to the top cover of his
venting mechanism as “an operating handle” (e.g., see the
Abstract and lines 42-47 in column 3). In follows that dependent
claim 4 likewise is anticipated by Wilkes or Hayes.
Under the foregoing circumstances, we hereby sustain the
examiner’s section 102 rejection of claims 1, 2 and 4 as being
anticipated by Wilkes or Hayes.
On the other hand, the section 102 rejection of claim 14 as
being anticipated by Hayes cannot be sustained. This claim
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007