Appeal No. 2005-0583
Application No. 10/116,494
recites “the canister having a boss, the lid having lugs clamping
the boss for holding the lid to the canister in a trap-closed
state, contacting surfaces of the lug with the boss in the trap-
closed state being horizontal.” According to the examiner,
“Hayes’s [sic] canister does include a boss (26) and Hayes’s
[sic] lid does include lugs (58,60) clamping the boss with
contacting surfaces (62,64) of the lugs (58,60) with the boss
(26) in a trap closed-state being horizontal. (see fig. 1)”
(answer, page 7). As correctly explained by the appellant in the
reply brief, however, patentee’s shoulders 62,64 on portions
58,60 simply do not contact flange 26 in the closed-state
pursuant to the claim under review. This deficiency of Hayes is
clearly shown in Figure 1 and is explained in the paragraph
bridging columns 3 and 4.
The section 103 rejections
Concerning dependent claim 5, we share the examiner’s
ultimate conclusion that it would have been obvious for one with
ordinary skill in this art to provide the upper canister half or
“lid” of either Wilkes or Hayes with a handle. In the
appellant’s view, neither Wilkes nor Hayes contains any teaching
or suggestion of a lid handle. Further, it is the appellant’s
contention that the size or weight of the aforementioned upper
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007