Appeal 2007-0135
Application 10/138,088
1 of 118 and be compressed before rim 112 will contact the top surface of the
2 container 118.
3 We turn next to claim 35. We will sustain the rejection of claim 35
4 because the rims 12, 14 of Ohmi meet the claimed merging surfaces between
5 the two rims.
6 We turn next to claim 36. We will sustain the rejection of claim 36
7 because Ohmi, in Figs. 7 and 8, illustrates rim 114 to be frusto-conical.
8 We turn next to claim 40. We will sustain the rejection of claim 40
9 because in Ohmi, the ends of the rims 112, 114 are flat; see Fig. 7.
10 In our sustaining of the claims listed, supra, we have relied upon the
11 prior art in a manner that is completely different than the Examiner, making
12 Appellant's remarks inapplicable and moot. Accordingly, we designate our
13 affirmance of these claims as a New Ground of Rejection under the
14 provisions of 37 C.F.R § 41.50(b).
15 We turn next to claims 6-8, 10, 11, 12, 14-15, 29-33, 37-39, 41,
16 and 42. We will reverse the rejection of these claims because the examiner
17 has failed to specifically address the limitations of these claims. None of
18 these claims have been referred to by their claim number in an attempt to
19 point out where their limitations are found or suggested by the prior art. Nor
20 have any of these claims, which Appellant has argued separately, been
21 specifically addressed, in either the rejection or the Response to Arguments
22 section of the Answer. The Examiner's rejection and response to Appellant's
23 arguments is a generic argument to the effect that the angles, shapes, and
24 specified heights would all have been obvious to an artisan as a design
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013