Appeal No. 2006-1227 Παγε 2
Application No. 09/960,606
The appellants’ invention relates to a blow molded drum (specification, p. 1). A
copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the appendix to the appellants’ brief.
THE PRIOR ART
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Hammes 4,228,122 Oct. 14, 1980
Przytulla 4,925,049 May 15, 1990
McKenzie 5,199,570 Apr. 6, 1993
Admitted prior art shown in Figure 5
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 to 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph for failing to
comply with the written description requirement.
Claims 1 to 3, 6, 7 and 10 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over McKenzie in view of Przytulla and Hammes.
Claims 4, 5, 8, 8 and 11 to 15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over McKenzie in view of Przytulla and Hammes and further in view of the
admitted prior art within this application.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants’ regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed November 8, 2004) and for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007