Ex Parte SILVER et al - Page 3

            Appeal No. 2006-1300                                                    
            Application No. 08/203,672                                              

                 b) removing said tear off strip to reveal a milk                   
            receiving chamber of said bag; and                                      
                 c) mounting said bag to said bag holder;                           
                 wherein milk is introduced in said chamber between                 
            said steps b) and c) or after step c).                                  
                                     THE PRIOR ART                                  
                 The references relied on by the examiner to support                
            the final rejection are:                                                
            Graham                    3,905,477           Sep. 16, 1975             
            Yanase (Yanase ‘104)      4,600,104           Jul. 15, 1986             
            Yanase (Yanase ‘006)      4,634,006           Jan. 06, 1987             
                                     THE REJECTIONS                                 
                 Claims 20-23 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)               
            as being anticipated by Graham.                                         
                 Claims 25 and 26 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.                    
            § 102(b) as being anticipated by Yanase ‘104.                           
                 Claims 20-24 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)               
            as being unpatentable over Yanase ‘006 in view of Graham.               
                 Attention is directed to the main and reply briefs                 
            (filed June 24, 2003 and August 18, 2005) and the final                 
            rejection and answer (mailed September 25, 2002 and                     
            May 16, 2005) for the respective positions of the                       
            appellants and examiner regarding the merits of these                   
            rejections.                                                             

                                         3                                          


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007