Appeal No. 2000-1449
Application No. 08/838,133
In light of the above, the statements of Mr. Long found in the
paper filed on April 12, 1999, do not convince us that the examiner
erred in rejecting claims 1-14, 16-20, 23-28, 31, 32, 37-39, 42 and
43.
III. Remand
This case is remanded to the examiner for consideration of the
following matter.
As noted above, claim 34 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,” and claim 41 calls for the cover of claim 31 to
be configured for “snap-on” installation. U.S. Patent 5,328,063 to
Beck, of record, discloses an overcap 16. As described by Beck
‘063 at column 3, lines 61-66:
. . . to snappingly engage the overcap 16 to the post 12,
the overcap 16 includes an internal annular rib 52. The
rib 52 seats within the recess 50 of the post 12 when the
overcap 16 is assembled to the post 12. If desired, a
tamper-indicating strap or tape (not illustrated) can be
utilized.
The examiner should (1) determine whether Beck ‘063, in
combination with other prior art of record, renders any of claims
34-36 and 41 unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and (2) take
19
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007