Appeal No. 97-2116
Application 07/789,802
have been obvious to make the container of Hoffman of
relatively thin material for the self evident purpose of
effecting a cost savings by minimizing the amount of material
needed to make the container. Accordingly, as argued, we will
sustain the § 103 rejection of claim 21 based on Hoffman and
the other references cited thereagainst in rejection (g).
We likewise will sustain the rejection of dependent claim
22 based on Hoffman and the other references cited
thereagainst in rejection (g) since this claim has not been
separately argued with any reasonable degree of specificity in
the argument with respect to claims 21-23 found on page 11 of
the brief. See, for example, In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567,
1572, 2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987).
We will not sustain the rejection of dependent claim 23
based on Hoffman and the other references cited thereagainst
in rejection (g) since we agree with appellant that the
applied prior art does not suggest the additional step of
locating the thermoplastic film between the container body and
the end closure and entrapping said portion during the step of
sealing the container with the end closure, as called for in
-20-
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007