Appeal No. 1997-1285 Page 8
Application No. 08/307,153
We agree with the examiner that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to
include conventional upstanding ribs on the rim 1 of FR 196 and would have formed these upstanding
ribs during the injection molding of the frame as taught by the combination of art to obtain a closure with
a well-known rib design for well-known advantages. We conclude that the examiner has made out a
prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 30.
Independent Claim 20, similarly to claim 30, recites forming a frame member with an
upstanding rib means extending about an upper surface of said frame member for facilitating stacking of
a plurality of closures and for protecting the pull tab. As explained above with respect to claim 30, the
examiner has asserted that such upstanding rib members are conventional in the art and appellant has
not challenged this assertion. The fact is taken as admitted and we conclude that adding the well-
known feature of the rib to the injection molded rim of the art combination would have been obvious to
obtain the known advantages of the well-known rib design.
Claim 20 is directed to a method of insert injection molding a frame around an end panel which
is in the shape of a planar disk and includes a co-planar pull tab. We note that FR 196 teaches such an
end panel at 2. Therefore, the art combination would have resulted in injection molding around such a
planar disk with pull tab as claimed. We conclude that the examiner has made out a prima facie case
of obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claim 20.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007