Appeal No. 2005-0987
Application No. 09/946,049
clearly would not view the ribbed outer surface of Pfefferkorn’s
cylindrical wall 2 as being stylized to resemble a conventional
crown closure.3
Hence, the examiner’s determination that Pfefferkorn meets
the above noted limitations in claims 11 and 20 is not well
founded. Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of independent claims 11 and 20, and
dependent claims 13 through 19 and 22 through 28, as being
anticipated by Pfefferkorn.
In addition to not teaching a closure cap comprising a
cylindrical sidewall having an outer surface stylized to resemble
a conventional crown closure, Pfefferkorn would not have
suggested same to one of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore,
we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claim 12, which depends from independent claim 11, as being
unpatentable over Pfefferkorn.
3 Based on the understanding of a conventional crown closure
established in the record, a person of ordinary skill in the art
arguably would not view the closure cap depicted in the
appellant’s drawings as having a cylindrical sidewall stylized to
resemble a conventional crown closure. In the event of further
prosecution, consideration should be given to the question of
whether these drawings comply with the requirement set forth in
37 CFR § 1.83(a) that patent application drawings “must show
every feature of the invention specified in the claims.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007