Appeal Number: 2006-1706
Application Number: 10/216,111
portion of the cap and pushes against the presser member
(figure 1) is made of glass (brief, page 5). Beery, however,
does not disclose the material of construction of any part of
the cap. The appellants argue that the downwardly extending
member is cross hatched in a fashion that conventionally
signifies glass, see id., but the appellants have provided no
support for this argument.
The appellants argue that “[t]he cap 27 itself does not
include any portion capable of biasing a membrane-type closure
applied to the jar, since the base portion or top panel of the
cap is spaced well above the top rim of the jar where the
membrane would be attached if it were present, and includes only
a slight dimple that would not function as a bias member”
(brief, page 5). The appellants further argue that “if a
flexible end closure were sealed to the top of Beery’s jar, the
screw cap 27 and glass disk would not engage the flexible end
closure, and the presser 1 would not be usable because it
extends too far below the top of the jar. Thus, even if the
screw cap and disk, or the cap, disk and presser, were made of
one piece, the resulting construction would not function as the
claimed overcap” (brief, page 6). Those arguments pertain to
the combination of Beery’s jar and cap, whereas the appellants
claim only a cap. The appellants’ claims do not limit the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007