Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
manner as the frangible elements 14 of the first tamper-evident
band, i.e., either between or from the elevated bridge portions of
the tamper-evident band. Our view in this regard is bolstered by
the circumstance that the record before us does not indicate any
particular advantage of one location over the other.4 Based on
this determination, we conclude that the reference evidence adduced
by the examiner also is sufficient to establish a prima facie case
of obviousness of claims 28 and 43.
Claim 34 depends from claim 32 and sets forth that the third
tamper indicating ring recited in claim 32 (i.e., the tamper
indicating ring for attaching the cover 90 to the closure)
“includes at least one annular bead for engaging at least one
annular bead positioned on said closure.” The examiner has relied
on Beck ‘374 for a teaching of this feature, referring us
specifically to the showing in Beck ‘374 of “a cover 10; ring 36;
4Compare In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 8-9
(CCPA 1975) (“Use of such a means of electrical connection in
lieu of those used in the references solves no stated problem and
would be an obvious matter of design choice within the skill of
the art.” (citations omitted)); In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672-
73, 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA 1966) (“Appellants have presented no
argument which convinces us that the particular configuration of
their container is significant or is anything more than one of
numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art
would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces
in the collapsed container of [the applied reference].” (citation
omitted)).
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007