Appeal No. 1998-0209
Application No. 08/452,153
cap taught by Borse.4
Appellant further argues that the cited references are
not combinable because they lack the requisite motivation or
suggestion to combine them. We do not share this view. As
articulated, supra, we determine that the evidence of
obviousness would have certainly provided ample incentive or
motivation to one of ordinary skill in the art for combining
the applied references.
Finally, appellant argues that neither reference teaches
nor suggests the “tapered guide section” called for in claim
2. However, as explained by the examiner (Answer, page 5),
Jones teaches a “tapered guide section” formed between the
bottom of the cover and the midpoint of the annular ridge.
Accordingly, appellant’s argument that the specific
limitation of claim 2 is not taught or suggested by the prior
art is not persuasive.
In summary, this panel of the Board has affirmed the
rejection of appellant’s claims 1 through 4 under 35 U.S.C.
As pointed out, supra, Borse teaches that the plastic cap is “readily4
flexible” which allows the cap to contract when it is inserted into the mouth
of the container.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007