Appeal No. 2005-0084
Application No. 09/835,726
Appellant does not dispute the examiner’s factual
determination that Thomas, like appellant, discloses a multilayer
container having outer and inner plastic layers that is formed by
extrusion blow molding operations. Also like appellant’s claimed
container, the container of Thomas has an atmospheric vent 57 in
the base portion of its outer layer.
Although appellant recognizes that the article of the
present invention is claimed in product-by-process format, and
the patentability of the product is determined by the structure
of the article and not by its particular process of preparation,
it is appellant’s contention that the vent opening of the present
invention, performed by the removal of the material after blow
molding, is different than the vent opening of Thomas. Appellant
urges that the vent opening of Thomas is different than the
claimed opening because the Thomas
vent is formed either by thermal shrinkage after the
mold has been opened and the container is allowed to
cool (FIGS. 5 and 7, and page 8, first two paragraphs
of the translation), or the mold is constructed in such
a way that the action of opening the mold itself forms
the atmospheric vent by tearing the container base wall
along the mold parting line (Thomas FIGS. 6 and 8-9,
paragraph bridging pages 8 and 9 of the translation)”
(page 7 of principal brief, last 6 sentences). Appellant
maintains that
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007