Appeal No. 97-2116
Application 07/789,802
In re Fracalossi, 681 F.2d 792, 794, 215 USPQ 569, 571 (CCPA
1982) and In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 1402, 181 USPQ 641,
644 (CCPA 1974). We therefore will sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claim 20 under § 103, noting that Cvacho ‘423,
Roales, Cvacho ‘927 and Nixon are cumulative. We will also
sustain the rejection of dependent claim 24 since appellant
acknowledges on
page 5 of the brief that this claim stands or falls with claim
20.
Claim 21 depends from method claim 20 and add the step of
“forming said container body of thin gauge material incapable
of resisting the axial forces applied during conventional
filling and closing operations . . . .” Appellant’s sole
argument with respect to this claim is that it differs from
parent claim 20 “by defining the use of thin gauge material .
. . [which is] not discussed by the applied art” (brief, page
11). The term “thin gauge material” is a relative term.
Further, the use of a relatively thin gauge material for a
container body is discussed in the prior art, for example, in
Cvacho ‘423 at column 4, lines 48-52. In our view, it would
-19-
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007