Appeal No. 2002-1523
Application 09/524,811
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to
the applied prior art reference, and to the respective positions
articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a consequence of
our review, we have made the determination that the examiner’s
rejection will not be sustained. Our reasons follow.
Like appellant (brief, page 4), we note that Arnold is
silent concerning any design parameters regarding the spout,
slot, or drainback hole of the fitment therein, and thus provides
no basis whatsoever for the examiner’s conclusion that the
particular parameters involved in appellant’s invention are
result-effective variables. Arnold focuses primarily on firmly
securing the fitment (24) in the opening (16) of container (10)
and providing multiple bands of sealing engagement therebetween
to ensure creation of a leak-free fit. Arnold is not at all
concerned about the architecture of the slot (un-numbered) or the
drainback hole (44), or any interplay between the size of the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007