Appeal No. 2005-0987
Application No. 09/946,049
As framed and argued by the appellant, the dispositive issue
with respect to the rejection of claims 11 and 20 is whether
Pfefferkorn, and more particularly the ribbed outer surface of
Pfefferkorn’s cylindrical wall 2, meet the limitations in claims
11 and 20 requiring the cylindrical sidewall of the closure cap
to have “an outer surface that is stylized to resemble a
conventional crown closure.” The underlying specification (see
page 4) describes a conventional crown closure as one that is
“conventionally used to seal glass beer bottles” and that has “a
familiar metal crimp pattern.” The record contains a 37 CFR
§ 1.132 declaration2 which establishes, without challenge by the
examiner, that a crown closure is commonly known to have the
appearance illustrated on page 6 of the appellant’s brief. Given
this understanding of a conventional crown closure, and the
manifest and considerable differences between the respective
appearances of such conventional crown closure and the
Pfefferkorn closure cap, a person of ordinary skill in the art
2 This declaration, which was filed by the appellant
subsequent to final rejection on March 8, 2004, has been entered
and considered by the examiner (see the advisory action mailed
April 15, 2004).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007