Appeal No. 1999-0953
Application No. 08/576,618
It is thus apparent that the claimed cover comprises a
relatively thick dome portion surrounded by a relatively thin
peripheral hinge area, whereas the cap 24 of Murphy comprises
a relatively thin inner or dome portion 28 surrounded by a
relatively thick outer portion 27. Notwithstanding the above,
the examiner has taken the position that the claimed cover
does not distinguish over Murphy. This is so because,
according to the examiner, “the [claim] terminology
‘relatively thick dome portion’ and ‘weakened relatively thin
area’ are not distinguish[able], and could be the same
thickness (see Seattle Box Company v Industrial Crating
Packing Inc. 221 USPQ 568)” (answer, page 3). Based on this
interpretation, the examiner considers that “[p]ortion #28 [of
Murphy] is a ‘weakened relatively thin area formed in the
cover’ #24. Portion #28 would also appear to be a ‘relatively
thick dome portion’.” (answer, pages 4-5). In what appears to
be an alternative rationale in support of the rejection, the
examiner further maintains that it would have been obvious to
provide a peripheral weakened area about the inner portion 28
of Murphy to improve the flexibility thereof in view of the
weakened peripheral areas P and P’ of Laauwe.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007