Appeal No. 97-2116
Application 07/789,802
appellant’s disclosure as a roadmap. In particular, it is our
opinion that the collective teachings of the applied
references do not disclose, suggest or imply the step of
locating a portion of the shrunk film between the container
body and container end closure and entrapping that portion
therebetween during the step of applying an axial force to
secure an end closure to a container body, as called for in
step (e) of claim 10. We therefore will not sustain the
rejection of claim 10, or any of claims 12-14 and 16-19 that
depend therefrom.
As for the rejection of independent claim 20 based on
Hoffman, Cvacho ‘423, Roales, Cvacho ‘927 and Nixon under §
103, as made clear in our discussion of rejection (f) supra,
claim 20 lacks novelty over the prior art method set forth in
column 1, lines 21-34 of Hoffman. While we appreciate that
the examiner has expressed the rejection in terms of
obviousness, we note that evidence (i.e., Hoffman)
establishing lack of novelty in the claimed invention
necessarily evidences obviousness. Lack of novelty has been
characterized by one of the predecessors of our court of
review as being the ultimate or epitome of obviousness. See
-18-
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007