Appeal No. 96-4162
Application 08/313,901
14) out of contact with the undercut portions of the cover, are explained at column 3, lines 9
through 29.
Wilkinson discloses a container (5) comprising a rim (8) having an outer surface
(10) which slopes downwardly and outwardly from point (11) on the upper edge of the rim
to a point (12) intersecting with a horizontal lip (13). Wilkinson discloses that the container
may be made of metal, glass or relatively rigid plastic material (column 2, lines 34 and 35)
but does not disclose a method of making the container.
Baugh discloses a similar container comprising, inter alia, an inwardly converging
(frusto-conical) sidewall surface (14) at the top of the neck of the container. The
converging sidewall surface (14) merges into a shoulder (15). Baugh discloses that the
container may be made of plastic, metal or glass (column 6, lines 5 through 7) but does not
specify any method of making the container.
In rejecting claims 1 through 6, the examiner has stated:
Each primary reference discloses a process of forming a
hollow article using a mold end member with a recess. The
end member being shaped to form a frusto-conical sealing
would have been an obvious design choice depending upon
the desired shape of the area because the shaping of a mold
surface to the shape of the article to be molded is the basic
principle of molding. Wilkinson and Baugh each teach the well
known shape of a container with frusto-conical sealing area
which would have obviously been molded using molds having
surfaces corresponding to the container surface [answer, page
5].
The appellant’s arguments, which can be found in the main brief on pages 8, 9 and
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007