Appeal No. 98-2414
Application 08/507,339
OPINION
In arriving at our decision in this appeal, we have
carefully considered appellant’s specification and claims, the
applied prior art references, and the respective positions
advanced by appellant and the examiner. Upon evaluation of
all the evidence before us, it is our conclusion that the
rejection of claims 12 through 16 and 25 through 27 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 before us on appeal cannot be sustained. Our
reasoning for this determination follows.
In the present case, the examiner has taken the
position (answer, page 3) that
Faulkner teaches a punching and drawing
process which is used to form metallic
hollow objects from sheet material which is
the basic process used to form metal
containers and end walls in the container
industry. Faulkner specifically states
that in the punching and drawing process,
that material which is deformed from the
flat material (i.e. the material of the
closure other than the center panel)
becomes thinner. It is therefore obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art
that the end closure of Saunders which is
formed by a process based upon the Faulkner
process would inherently posses [sic] a
center panel which was thicker than the
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007