Appeal 2007-2806
Application 10/617,036
Nohara’s figure 8 shows that the “so-obtained multi-layer drawn polyester
bottle” (col. 8, ll. 54-55) has a semi-spherical bottom.
The Appellants argue that Nohara is silent as to the reason for the
semi-spherical bottom, and that filling Nohara’s semi-spherical-bottomed
bottle with carbonated beverage and sealing it with a lid would be highly
unusual and contrary to the accepted practice over hundreds of years of
forming bottles that stand stably (Br. 7). Nohara does not disclose the
purpose of the semi-spherical bottom. However, Nohara discloses that the
semi-spherical bottom is “an optional bottom shape” (col. 7, ll. 53-54),
indicating that the bottom can have other shapes, perhaps the conventional
flat bottom. Consequently, one of ordinary skill in the art would have
interpreted Nohara as disclosing that the bottom of the final bottle, filled
with carbonated beverage and sealed, can have a semi-spherical shape.
The Appellants argue, in reliance upon a declaration under
37 C.F.R. § 1.132 by Gideon Feiner (filed Feb. 1, 2006), that one of ordinary
skill in the art would have interpreted Nohara as requiring that a stabilizing
base be added to the semi-spherical-bottomed bottle to render the final bottle
stable (Br. 7-8). Feiner argues that adding a stabilizing base was widely
practiced, established art in the 1980s and 1990s, and that “[o]ne of ordinary
skill in the art would definitely not find any inclination in Nohara that any
round-bottomed bottle would be filled and sealed without addition of a
stabilizing base” (Declaration 1-2). That inclination would come from
Nohara’s disclosures that 1) the semi-spherical bottom shape is optional (i.e.,
an option to other shapes such as, perhaps, the conventional flat shape) (col.
7, ll. 53-54), and 2) the “so obtained multi-layer polyester bottle 36 shown in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013