Appeal No. 96-0619
Application 08/075,409
cylindrical side wall 26 and a top lip 30 that are of a one-piece construction). The examiner
apparently recognizes this, but notes that “integral” is broad enough to encompass separate
elements which are joined or fastened together. Thereafter, the examiner takes the position that
the insert disk 25 of Ochs can be considered to be “integrally formed” with the shell 24 because
the shell clamps the insert disk to the mouth of Ochs’ container when closure is effected and
accordingly are “joined together” and, hence, “integral.”
While it is well settled that “‘integral’ is sufficiently broad to embrace constructions united
by such means as fastening and welding,” In re Hotte, 475 F.2d 644, 647, 177 USPQ 326, 329
(CCPA 1973), the insert disk 25 and shell 24 (which together form the composite closure 20 of
Ochs) cannot be fairly construed to be “united” within the meaning of Hotte. That is, even
though the shell 24 of Ochs is screwed onto the finish of the container the lip 30 so as to clamp
the insert disk 25 to the mouth of the container, when the shell 24 is unscrewed and removed
from the container, the insert disk remains behind as a separate element. In short, the insert disk
25 and shell 24 of Ochs are never secured together in such a manner that they form a “single unit”
or constitute a “unitary whole.” In re Larson, 340 F.2d 965, 144 USPQ 347, 349 (CCPA 1965).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007