Appeal No. 2001-1387
Application No. 08/715,210
causes absorption of the wax layers as described
hereinbefore, it being understood that the releasing
power of wax layer 21 is larger than that of wax 1
layer 25.
If the screw cap is removed for the first time,
a seal closure formed by layers 21 to 27 remains on
the neck of the container, whereas foam layer 20
remains in the cap.
The operator then peels off the laminate
comprising layers 21 to 25 from the container, and
then opens the container . . . [by removing] the
remaining seal formed by layers 26 and 27.
If the container is not completely emptied and
must be reclosed, foam layer 20 forms a liquid-tight
seal between cap 10 and surface 9 of neck 15 of the
container [column 3, lines 34 through 68].
As conceded by the examiner (see pages 2 and 4 in the
final rejection), neither Unipac nor Peeters responds to the
limitation in claim 1 requiring “a pressure sensitive adhesive
light tack shearable adhesive joining one face of the reusable
liner to an opposing face of the inner seal, said adhesive
more readily failing in shear than said reusable liner portion
so as to enable separation of the reusable liner from the
inner seal.” The corresponding elements in the prior art
liners are Unipac’s wax adhesive and Peeters’ wax 21.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007