Appeal 2007-2873
Application 09/800,793
The Appellants acknowledge that the claimed plastic closure was
known in the art except for the recited parting line flash or surface mismatch
in combination with at least one annular sealing band (Spec. 1-2). The
Appellants state:
The generally accepted manufacturing method of producing plastic
closures for use in this particular application requires the use of a
split-block mold, which offers the opportunity for “parting line flash,”
otherwise referred to as parting line mismatch, to be created on the
closure’s radial sealing surface. The sharp edged surface created by
the flash or mismatch is not an ideal sealing surface, and provides a
potential leak path through the gland. [Spec. 1]
* * *
In an effort to improve the closure performance, closure
manufacturers often perform a secondary operation on the closure
when parting line flash or mismatch is present on the sealing surface.
Secondary operations include machining the entire outer
circumference of the closure sealing gland, or else removing the flash
or mismatch through a secondary machining process. In either case,
the secondary operations add cost to the product, and lower potential
profits to the manufacturer. [Spec. 2]
The Appellants eliminate the step of removing the parting line flash or
mismatch and compensate for the potential leakage resulting from the
presence of the parting line flash or mismatch by including around the top
neck section one or more annular bands that bite into the gasket and thereby
improve the seal (Spec. 2).
Williams discloses a jar (5) and a closure (7) which preferably are
made of glass but can be made of any other suitable material (p. 1, ll. 83-88;
p. 2, ll. 5-8). The closure has, below an upper peripheral flange (9), a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013