Appeal 2006-1521
Application 09/815,877
with, for example, snap closure devices because a valve means including a
plug is a well known closure device as evinced by Morten. Also, Dickerhoff
leaves the list of potential closure devices open-ended such that using a well
known closure device as a plug would have been an obvious addition to
Dickerhoff’s list of possible closure devices.
Therefore, in response to this remand, the Examiner must determine,
and make of record the results of this determination, the following: (1) the
propriety of rejecting at least claim 34 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
unpatentable over Morten, and (2) the propriety of rejecting at least claims
34, 35, 54, and 56 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Dickerhoff in view of Morten.
This remand to the Examiner pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(1)
(2006) is not made for further consideration of a rejection. Accordingly,
37 C.F.R. § 41.50(a)(2) (2006) does not apply.
CONCLUSION
In summary, we have reversed the § 102(b) rejection of claims 34, 35,
and 54 over Dickerhoff.
We have reversed the § 103(a) rejection of claims 35 and 56 over Berke
in view of Dickerhoff.
We have remanded the application to the Examiner for consideration
consistent with our comments above.
REVERSED & REMANDED
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007