Appeal 2007-0870
Reissue Application 09/902,904
Patent 6,038,784
mounted, while claim 11 requires "a plurality of ring support members that
are constructed and arranged to support a ring portion of a baby bottle."
a. Slipp and Folini
We have found that claim 2 is anticipated by Slipp (§ C.1.c.(i)).
Folini describes a storage device for storing a baby bottle set (p. 2, l.
2). Folini describes a device comprising a base tray 2, with at least one rod
8 for holding a bottle 10, a short rod 16 for holding a nipple/mouthpiece 18
and a plurality of cone-shaped rods 12, 34 for holding a locking ring 14 (p. 4
"REFERENCE SYMBOLS" and Fig. 2).
The Examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to a skilled
artisan to combine Slipp with the plurality of ring support members
described by Folini for the purpose of providing supports for the ring portion
of a baby bottle (Answer, 10).
b. Appellants' position
Appellants reiterates its argument applied to claim 2 that Slipp fails to
disclose "said entire peg is positioned adjacent to said upper face for storage
and packaging of said apparatus" (Br., 40). Appellants contend that Folini
fails to remedy this alleged deficiency in Slipp (Br., 41).
c. analysis
We reiterate our analysis of Slipp given above (§ C.1.c.(i)) and our
finding that Slipp, in fact, discloses the claim limitation that "said entire peg
is positioned adjacent to said upper face for storage and packaging of said
apparatus." Appellants do not contest the Examiner's conclusion that it
would have been obvious to a skilled artisan to combine the plurality of ring
27
Page: Previous 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013