Appeal 2005-0801
Application 09/848,628
26. Claim 12 as originally filed duplicates originally filed
claim 2 above except that claim 12 depends from claim 11.
27. Claim 13 as originally filed duplicates originally filed
claim 3 above except that claim 13 depends from claim 12.
28. Claim 6 as originally filed has the feature of:
a reinforcing groove [85] centrally located in said hood portion [76] at a
right angle to said perforated plate [78].
29. Claims 3, 7, and 13, as originally filed each have the
features of:
an abutment surface [75] for contacting said lid [40] about said lid vent hole
[72];
at least one L shaped retainer member [79] to hold said hood [54] to said
abutment surface [75]; and
at least [one] catch member [80] opposite said at least one L shaped retainer
member [79] to releasably retain said hood [54] to said lid [40].
30. On January 26, 1998, the examiner entered a first Office
action (the first action).
31. Dependent claim 6 was objected to as being dependent
on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent
form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening
claims (First action, page 4).
32. Claims 1-5 and 7-20 were rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over the following prior art (First action, pages 2-4):
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007