Ex Parte Vilacha Zanoni et al - Page 4




                 Appeal No. 2004-0187                                                                                  Page 4                     
                 Application No. 09/745,098                                                                                                       


                 It is the examiner’s position that all of the subject matter recited in claim 1 is                                               
                 anticipated1 by Leenaards.  The appellants take issue with this conclusion, arguing that                                         
                 Leenaards does not disclose or teach that the curved portion is adapted to be the same                                           
                 shape as the mouth contour of a bottle, as is required by claim 1.                                                               
                         In evaluating this rejection, we first note the appellants have defined “mouth                                           
                 contour” of the bottle to mean the curved portion at the mouth, as shown at 42 in Figure                                         
                 2a, which comprises an upper portion 43 and a lower portion 45.  Leenaards is directed                                           
                 to a twist-off crown closure that utilizes a seal, and the examiner has made reference to                                        
                 Figures 2 and 5, contending that the terms of the claim are met because the crown                                                
                 closure has “a curved portion that is the same shape as the mouth contour of the bottle                                          
                 prior to crimping” (Paper No. 8, page 4).  We do not agree.  There is no description in                                          
                 Leenaards that supports the examiner’s conclusion and, from our perspective, neither                                             
                 do the drawings.  It appears to us from Figures 2-6 that the inner curve of the                                                  
                 Leenaards’ crown closure merely touches the outer curve of the bottle mouth over at                                              
                 most a very small arc, and therefore does not meet the requirement in the claim that it                                          


                         1Anticipation is established only when a single prior art reference discloses, expressly or under the                    
                 principles of inherency, each and every element of the claimed invention.  See, for example, RCA Corp. v.                        
                 Applied Digital Data Systems, Inc., 730 F.2d 1440, 1444, 221 USPQ 385, 388 (Fed. Cir. 1984).  A                                  
                 reference anticipates a claim if it discloses the claimed invention such that a skilled artisan could take its                   
                 teachings in combination with his own knowledge of the particular art and be in possession of the                                
                 invention.  In re Graves, 69 F.3d 1147, 1152, 36 USPQ2d 1697, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert. denied,                               
                 116 S.Ct. 1362 (1996), quoting from In re LeGrice, 301 F.2d 929, 936, 133 USPQ 365, 372 (CCPA 1962).                             









Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007