Appeal No. 2005-2412
Application No. 10/018,818
For this reason, we also cannot sustain the examiner’s
Section 102 rejection of claims 1, 3 and 4 as being anticipated
by Ruiz.
The Section 102 rejection of claims 1 and 3-20 as being
anticipated by Baur likewise cannot be sustained. As correctly
explained by the appellants, Bauer does not disclose a shaped
container bottom as defined by the independent claims on appeal.
To the contrary, patentee’s container bottom is flat. In
responding to the appellants’ arguments, the examiner refers to
“the edge regions of the bottom member 12 of Baur has [sic, as]
providing the concave-curvature limitations [of the independent
claims]” (answer, page 6). The examiner’s position is not well
taken.
We do not perceive and the examiner does not explain why it
would be reasonable and consistent with the appellants’
specification to interpret the claim 1 requirement for a panel
bottom having a concave-curvature which substantially conforms to
the curvature of the snack pieces as being satisfied by the
circular shape along the edge of patentee’s bottom member 12.
Even if the circular edge region of Baur’s bottom member were
somehow considered to satisfy the claim 1 requirement for a
bottom panel having a concave-curvature, the rejection of claim
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007