Appeal No. 2006-2060 Page 9
Application No. 10/605,873
(Examiner’s Answer, p. 6). We fail to find any motivation, teaching, or
suggestion to modify the device of Bowes, as modified by English, to add the
apertures of Rizzardi to result in the invention of claim 5.
As shown in Figure 1, Rizzardi relates to a closure for a bottle (5) including
a reservoir (2) having an annular edge (6) and a breakable bottom (3). The
reservoir (2) is disposed in the neck (4) of the bottle (5). A cylindrical hollow
element (8), with its lower end (9) cut sideways, is housed in the reservoir (2). The
hollow element (8) is used to break the bottom surface (3) of the reservoir (2) to
allow the contents of the reservoir (2) into the bottle (5). (Rizzardi, col. 2, lines 29-
42). The closure of Rizzardi also includes a cap (10) that covers the neck (4) of the
bottle (5). As shown in Figures 3 and 6, the cap (10) includes cylindrical sections
(11 and 12) that are interconnected by connecting bridges (15). (Rizzardi, col. 2,
lines 56-58). Apertures are formed in the areas between the adjacent bridges. The
connecting bridges (15) are used to facilitate opening of the cap (10) through
fracturing of the bridges (15) to separate the two sections (11 and 12) of the cap
(10), as described in col. 3, lines 4-16.
We find no teaching, suggestion, or motivation in Rizzardi to add apertures
to the annular edge (6) of the reservoir (2). Rather, Rizzardi teaches using
apertures only in the cap (10) to facilitate opening. Further, when viewed as a
whole, the combined teachings of Bowes, English and Rizzardi, would not have
provided a suggestion, teaching, or motivation for one skilled in the art confronted
with the problem facing the inventor to have modified Bowes to have added
apertures to the peripheral flange (21) of the cup (15) of Bowes. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007