Appeal No. 96-2715
Application 08/359,673
We agree with all of appellants’ arguments. The
enlarged view of upper wall 12 in Abe’s Figure 2B shows that
the upper wall does not extend inwardly as claimed, but
instead, the upper wall remains at the same diameter about the
central axis through its entire length. Thus, upper wall 12
does not form a truncated dome as claimed but is nothing more
than a truncated cylinder. Appellants are also correct that
flange 10b of Abe does not flex as recited in claim 24 because
the diameter of upper portion 12 is constant. Finally,
appellants are correct that there is absolutely no motivation
to apply the Bourdier wide-mouth teachings to the narrow-mouth
bottle of Abe. The Abe seal is specifically designed for a
narrow-mouth container as shown therein.
Thus, the examiner has erroneously identified
recitations of independent claim 24 as being present in Abe
when they are not taught therein. Since the examiner has not
addressed the obviousness of these differences between Abe and
the claimed invention, the examiner has failed to establish a
prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly, we do not
sustain the rejection of claims 24, 25, 2, 3 and 8-10. Since
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007