Appeal No. 2004-0117
Application 09/779,312
thermoplastic lid required by the appellants’ claim 5.
For the above reasons we reverse the rejections of claims 5
and 10 over Fritz in view of Kubis, claims 6-9 and 12 over Fritz
in view of Kubis and DeCoster, and claim 11 over Fritz in view of
Kubis and Tupper.
Rejection over Tupper in view of Kubis
Tupper discloses a container for materials, particularly
food and drink, that need to be sealed from the atmosphere
(col. 1, lines 4-6). The container has, around its rim, a moat
such that the container rim and the outer edge of the moat
provide a double seal (col. 2, lines 45-52; figures).3 Tupper
discloses that such containers and their push-on lids are made of
synthetic plastic materials (col. 1, lines 7-11).
The examiner argues that ‘[i]t would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to apply Kubis’s teaching of a seal membrane to the inner
wall of the container of Tupper. Doing so would ensure the
integrity of the container contents upon first use” (answer,
page 5). The examiner also argues that “one of ordinary skill in
the art would provide a seal membrane to a container rim to
3 This moat corresponds to the appellants’ neck finish with
concentric generally upstanding inner and outer walls.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007