Appeal No. 2004-1249
Application 09/857,086
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection of claims 4 and 5.3
III. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 3 and 5
through 10 as being anticipated by Smith.
Smith discloses a stackable package comprising a container
(i.e., receptacle) 11 and a closure (i.e., lid) 12. Of
particular interest is Smith’s description of the closure 12:
closure 12 is a one-piece structure thermoformed from a
synthetic organic thermoplastic material, e.g.
polystyrene or polyethylene, has substantially circular
horizontal cross sections and comprises a circular
closure disc or diaphragm 31 . . . . A generally
frustoconical camming wall 32 extends upwardly and
outwardly from the outer periphery of the diaphragm 31.
Annular wall 33 extends at least substantially
vertically upwardly from the upper extent of wall 32
. . . . A circumferentially continuous, generally
concavely curved annular ring 34 extends outwardly and
upwardly from the upper extent of wall 33 to the inner
extent of circumferentially continuous annular rim 35
. . . . A circumferentially continuous skirt wall [36-
39] extends generally downwardly from the outer extent
of rim 35 [column 2, lines 13 through 59].
Smith also teaches that in order to enhance the
stacking capability of the container-closure combination
the walls 32 and 33 are interrupted by a plurality of
3
3 The recitation in claim 5 that the base area is “wave-
shaped” is somewhat ambiguous, even when read in light of the
underlying specification. In the event of further prosecution,
the examiner should consider whether this particular language
poses a problem under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007