Appeal 2005-0801 Application 09/848,628 54. Schafer and Martin are prior art vis-�-vis applicant under 35 U.S.C. � 102(b). 55. The Examiner found that Schafer describes, “in Figure 1 a waste cart having a hollow body, a lower portion, an upper portion, and at least one vent hole (15) in the lower portion, and a lid.” The Examiner further stated, “The Schafer lid has vent holes (21).” 56. However, the Examiner found that Schafer “does not teach a hood positioned over the lid vent hole(s) to shield the vent hole from rain.” 57. The Examiner further found that Martin ‘216 describes, in the same field of endeavor, “a tank or container having a vent hood (38) over a vent hole.” 58. The Examiner held that: It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the Schafer waste cart’s lid to have a hood over its vent holes as taught by Martine ‘216 to prevent contaminants from entering the container.” 59. On September 28, 1998, applicant filed an amendment responding to the Examiner's Final Office action (Res. to final action). 60. The amendment cancelled claims 1, 4, 5, 9, 11, 12, and 14-20. 16Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007