Appeal No. 2004-0187 Page 7
Application No. 09/745,098
the art to form crown closures by means of a punch press operation, a process which
necessarily would include the use of blanks. We therefore agree with the examiner that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have sufficient skill to appreciate that the
Leenaards blanks also could be formed by the process disclosed by Myer, considering
that in an obviousness assessment skill is presumed on the part of the artisan, rather
than the lack thereof. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir.
1985). Thus, we are not persuaded by the appellants’ arguments that there is no
suggestion to combine these references.
With regard to the dimensions of the blanks used to create the crown closure,
Leenaards discloses finished crown closures having a skirt diameter within the range of
20-40 mm, but does not disclose the diameter of the blanks from which they are
produced, specifically, no teaching of utilizing blanks having a diameter of “about 1.4
inches (35.5 mm),” as is required by claim 14. The examiner has concluded that this
feature would have been obvious in view of the teachings of Leenaards. The only
argument set forth by the appellants with regard to the diameter of the blanks is that
neither reference specifically discloses or teaches a crown closure blank of the claimed
diameter, and therefore the obviousness rejection cannot stand (Amended Brief, page
7). However, while this argument might be applicable in the case of an anticipation
rejection 35 U.S.C. § 102, the rejection before us is one of obviousness under
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007