Appeal 2007-0293
Application 10/630,982
ISSUES ON APPEAL
Claims 17-20 stand rejected under the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph, for failure to meet the written description requirement
(Answer 3).1
Claims 1-4, 6, 8-11, 15, and 16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Carl in view of White (Answer 4).2 Claims 5,
7, 13, and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Carl in view of White and the APA (Answer 6).
Appellant contends that Figure 1 provides support for added claims
17-20, with the only portion of the shield 10 that engages container 18 being
shoulder 10d, but this shoulder does not engage the threaded portion of the
container (Br. 11).
Appellant contends that the Examiner agrees that Carl does not teach
that the main body member 10 is made from scraps of the first material used
to make the container, and the Examiner has not provided any reason or
motivation to modify Carl or combine the disclosures of Carl and White
(Br. 12-13).
Appellant also contends that the discussion in White of recycling is
made in the context of describing disadvantages of dip-coating techniques,
and is not applicable to the claimed process (Br. 13).
1 We refer to and cite from the “edited version” of the Examiner’s Answer
dated Aug. 24, 2006.
2 The Examiner has mistakenly included claim 12 in this rejection (Answer
4). However, as correctly noted by Appellant (Br. 5), claim 12 was canceled
in the Amendment dated May 23, 2005.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013