Ex Parte Apps et al - Page 16


         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.                                                                                          




                                                      16                                                        



Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007