Appeal No. 2005-1013
Application 09/767,155
speculate as to modifications that the inventor might have
envisioned, but failed to disclose.
In light of the foregoing, the examiner's rejection of
claims 1 through 7 under 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as
lacking written description support in the originally filed
disclosure will be sustained.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 through 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Perry in view
of Neiner, the examiner points to the particular can closure or
lid seen in Figure 28 of Perry, apparently as used on a container
like that seen in Figure 1 of the patent, and urges that such a
beverage can and closure/lid are fully responsive to that set
forth in appellants’ claims on appeal, except that the beverage
can of Perry “is of the old type which does not teach the current
technology of a can with a larger diameter than the lid and a lid
with an indented portion surrounded by the score line” (answer,
page 4). To account for such differences, the examiner points to
Neiner, urging only that this patent “teaches this current can
technology,” particularly in Figures 1, 3 and 7. The examiner
then contends that to modify the container and end wall of Perry
to conform to the current container technology would have been
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007