Appeal No. 1999-1911
Application No. 08/659,308
discerned from a review of the teachings of Reinhard and
Lerner. In this regard, Reinhard explicitly teaches that the
concave and convex chamfers at the mouth of the container
define a circumferentially extensive “line” or edge for
axially driven sealing contact against the flat annular
surface 34 of the applicator cap (column 2, lines 37-45), and
Lerner explicitly teaches that the bead 34 may be configured
to provide an annular point contact (as by providing the bead
with a sharp edge) to remove any surplus liquid that may
remain on the bead, thereby leaving the bead clear at all
times for sealing contact with the flange 48 (column 3, lines
26-33).
The arguments advanced by appellant have been carefully
considered, however, they do not persuade us that the standing
rejection is improper. Our position with respect to most of
these arguments should be apparent from our discussion supra.
Concerning the individual deficiencies of Reinhard noted by
appellant on page 3 of the brief, we observe that
nonobviousness cannot be established by attacking the
references individually when, as here, the rejection is
predicated upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007