Appeal No. 2006-2041 Page 4
Application No. 10/412,336
¶ 23), the appellants’ disclosure indicates that the panels and
walls are distinct and are not merely portions of a smooth
continuous wall (figures 1-3). Thus, the terms “panel” and
“wall”, when given their broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with the specification, are limited to distinct panels
and walls.
The examiner has marked up portions of the surface of
Schiemann’s container and labeled them as the elements in the
appellants’ claims. The examiner’s transition wall is not a
distinct wall but, rather, is a portion of the sides and top of
each of Schiemann’s containers.
Thus, the examiner has not established a prima facie case of
anticipation of the appellants’ claimed invention over Schiemann.
Also, the examiner has not explained how the appellants’
transition wall would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art over Schiemann in combination with the other
references with which Schiemann is applied. The examiner,
therefore, has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
of the appellants’ claimed invention over Schiemann and the
references applied therewith.
Rejections over Platte, Sr., alone or
in combination with other references
Platte, Sr. discloses a blow-molded bottle having oblong
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007