Appeal 2007-2806
Application 10/617,036
maintaining carbonated drinks or fruit juice drinks” (col. 1, ll. 40-42).
Nohara improves the gas barrier property of a polyester bottle by placing a
gas barrier layer between two polyester layers (col. 7, ll. 39-44), but Nohara
does not disclose that the polyester bottle has better gas permeability than a
metal can. Hence, we are not persuaded of error in the Examiner’s argument
that it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
to make Nohara’s bottle out of metal to make it stronger and more durable,
particularly in view of Diekhoff’s disclosure of a metal bottle for packaging
the same products packaged by Nohara, i.e., carbonated beverages beer and
soft drinks (Diekhoff, col. 1, ll. 17-20; col. 11, l. 67 – col. 12, l. 1).
The Appellants’ arguments regarding the rejection of claims 20-23
over Nohara in view of Esposito and the rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 20-
23 and 25 over Esposito in view of Nohara (Br. 10-11) are among the
arguments discussed above and are not persuasive for the reasons given with
respect to those arguments.
DECISION
The rejections of claims 1, 7-9 and 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over
Nohara, claims 2, 4, 6 and 20-23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Nohara in view
of Esposito and Diekhoff, and claims 1, 2, 4, 6-9, 20-23 and 25 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 over Esposito in view of Nohara are affirmed.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013