Appeal No. 1998-0209
Application No. 08/452,153
usage by males.” At any rate, even if Jones’ vessel were
designed exclusively for use by females, which it is not, we
do not perceive this as a basis for reversing the rejection.
Jones is applied for its teaching of a watertight seal which
is simple to manufacture and easy to use, not for its teaching
of a long, narrow structure.
Appellant also argues that the teachings of the Borse and
Jones references cannot be combined, because Jones’ seal
depends on the flexibility of the vessel side wall to yield or
spread apart as the cover engages the top of the vessel
opening, whereas the neck of Borse’s bottle is not deformable.
We are not persuaded by this argument, because the proposed
modification to the mouth of Borse would have produced an
operable seal even with Borse’s inflexible mouth. This is
because the necessary
flexibility would have been provided by the flexible plastic
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007