Appeal No. 2000-0003 Page 8
Application No. 08/618,814
extending upwardly from the base as shown in Figure 3) in
which the peripheral wall has a given diameter, Dolveck does
not teach or suggest that the diameter of the peripheral wall
of the metal blank shown in Figures 1-3 be equal to a given
diameter of a region of the peripheral wall of the shaped can.
Thus, the first of the three process steps of claim 1 is not
readable on Dolveck. The second of the three process steps of
claim 1 is not readable on Dolveck since Dolveck does not
teach or suggest effecting an operation reducing the diameter
of the peripheral wall by shrinking a part of the peripheral
wall of the preliminary can situated above the region of the
given diameter of the peripheral wall. Likewise, the third of
the three process steps of claim 1 is not readable on Dolveck
since Dolveck does not teach or suggest effecting at least one
expanding operation on a part of the peripheral wall situated
above the region of the given diameter.
The examiner's position (answer, p. 2) that
notwithstanding Dolveck's specific teaching that the entire
peripheral wall is deformed, that Dolveck's Figures 3 to 6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007