Appeal No. 98-1297
Application No. 08/555,836
nom., Hazeltine Corp. v. RCA Corp., 468 U.S. 1228 (1984).
According to the examiner, all of the subject matter recited
in claim 1 finds correspondence in the molded threaded closure
of the embodiment shown in Figures 11 and 12 of Towns. The
appellant argues that this is not the case, on the basis that
the Towns annular groove does not meet the terms of the claim.
We agree with the appellant that this is the case.
Central to our position is what constitutes the “tamper-
indicating ring.” As described on page 5 of the
specification, the appellant’s invention includes “[f]rangible
bridges 32 [that] interconnect the tamper-indicating ring 13"
to the lower edge of sidewall 12 of the closure. The
description continues that “ring 13 includes an upper edge 34,
and an inner surface 35 forming a tapered annular head 36, as
well as an outer surface 37 which meets the inner surface 35
at a lower edge 38.” From this, it is our conclusion that the
“tamper-indicating ring” recited in claim 1 terminates at an
upper edge 34 and does not include the frangible attachment
means. Therefore, we interpret the limitation in the claim of
“said groove providing space for radial expansion of said
tamper-indicating ring” to require that the groove be so
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007