Appeal No. 97-2116
Application 07/789,802
force to the container body radially thereof, as called for in
step (c) of claim 20, at least to some degree.
Appellant’s argument on page 10 of the brief is not
persuasive that the examiner erred in making this rejection.
With respect to appellant’s statement that claim 20 “was
allowed by the Board in the Decision of September 16, 1993 . .
. over the teachings of the patents to Yazumi and Kaercher et
al,” we must point out that we did not allow claim 20 in that
decision. Rather, we reversed the examiner’s § 103 rejection
thereof based on Yazumi and Kaercher. As to the argument that
“no mention is made about axial strength of the container [in
Hoffman]” (brief, page 10), this argument fails at the outset
because it is not commensurate in scope with the claim. Note
that claim 20 only calls for shrinking the film for applying a
compressive force to the container body radially thereof.
We will therefore sustain the anticipation rejection of
claim 20 based on Hoffman.
Rejections (g) and (h)
Independent method claim 10 calls for the steps of (a)
providing a container body having an open end, (b) encircling
-16-
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007