Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
Thomas as teaching or suggesting the subject matter of claim 22, we
consider that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness of claim 22.
Claims 28 and 43 set forth that the at least one frangible
element of the tamper-evident band of the pour spout is connected
to the annular wall thereof “from” a second elevated bridge
portion. Sander teaches (1) that the first tamper-evident band 15
carried by the annular wall 13 should include elevated bridge
portions 35 for protecting the frangible elements 14 during molding
and assembly (column 2, line 60 through column 3, line 3), and (2)
that the frangible elements 14 may interconnect the band 15 to the
annular wall 13 either between or from the elevated bridge portions
35 (see, for example, Figures 1-3). Sander further teaches (3)
that the second tamper-evident band 30 carried by the annular wall
28 of the pour spout should include upstanding stops 29A (i.e.,
elevated bridge portions) (see Figures 3 and 4 and column 2, lines
18-20), which elevated stops are presumably provided for the same
purpose as the elevated bridge portions 35 of the first
tamper-evident band. Based on these reference teachings, we
consider that it would have been an obvious matter of design choice
to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the frangible
elements 29 for Sander’s second tamper-evident band in the same
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007