Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
beads 42 and at 109” (answer, page 5). However, the ring 36 of
Beck ‘374 is akin to the tamper-evident ring 15 of Sander.
Moreover, the cover of Beck ‘374 is connected to the closure by a
tamper indicating frangible webs 31 that do not comprise annular
beads on the cover and closure. Based on the disparity between
what is being claimed and that which is taught by Beck ‘374, we
conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness claim 34, or claims 35 and 36 that depend therefrom.
Claim 41 depends from claim 31 and calls for the cover of
claim 31 to be configured for “snap-on” installation. The examiner
again relies on Beck ‘374 for a teaching of this claim feature.
Because we do not agree with the examiner that the additional
“snap-on” feature for the cover called for in claim 41 is taught by
Beck ‘374, we conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness of
this claim has not been established.
To summarize the above, we conclude that the reference
evidence adduced by the examiner is sufficient to establish a prima
facie case of obviousness of claims 28 and 43, but is not
sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of claims
21, 22, 34-36 and 41.
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007