Appeal No. 1997-1285 Page 4
Application No. 08/307,153
C Claim 29 stands separate from parent claim 26
C Claim 30 stands separate from parent claim 26
C Claim 33 stands separate from parent claim 26
C Claim 36 stands separate from parent claim 26
As appellant has provided arguments meeting the requirements of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(8), we
adopt appellant’s groupings. We start our analysis with claim 26.
Claim 26 is directed to a process of insert injection molding a frame around an end panel having
an integral pull tab at its periphery. As the examiner explains in the rejection (page 3 of the Answer),
Suzuki teaches placing an insert in a mold cavity and injection molding a peripheral frame and other
elements on the insert during forming of a container lid. FR 196 shows a conventional container closure
including an end panel insert with pull tab which is attached to a previously injection molded peripheral
rim. According to FR 196, the separately formed end panel insert and peripheral rim are bonded
together by heat sealing or adhesive bonding (translation: paragraph bridging pages 2 and 3). The
examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to make the container lid with the conventional
features of FR 196 by the process steps of Suzuki.
Appellant makes two general arguments. First, in the brief at page 4, appellant argues that
Suzuki does not and cannot provide the end panel with a pull tab and FR 196 teaches a different
process of making. Second, in the brief at pages 4 and 5, appellant argues that the combination of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007