Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
DISCUSSION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful
consideration to appellant’s specification and claims, to the
applied prior art references, to the paper styled “AFFIDAVIT
PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. 1.132” of inventor Charles J. Long, Jr.1, and
to the above noted positions articulated by appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations that follow.
I. The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph
Claims 42 and 43 depend from claims 5 and 26, respectively,
and further set forth that the closure has “at least one said first
frangible element . . . connected to said annular wall from a first
elevated bridge portion.”
The examiner has rejected these claims because, in the
examiner’s view, they “raise[] issues of double inclusion” (answer,
page 3). The examiner’s position in this regard is not well taken.
The disclosed feature claims 42 and 43 are directed to is the
location of at least one of the first frangible elements 14 (see
Figures 1-3) extending from the tamper-evident band 15 to the
depending annular wall or skirt 13 at the location of the first
1Attachment to appellant’s response submitted April 12, 1999
(Paper No. 6). A copy thereof is attached to this decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007