Appeal No. 2005-1227 Page 2
Application No. 10/099,321
Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being unpatentable
over Spatz1.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Spatz
in view of official notice.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed June 1, 2004) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections
and to the brief (filed April 23, 2004) and reply brief (filed July 30, 2004) for the
appellants’ arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants’ specification and claims, to the applied Spatz patent, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Spatz discloses a method for putting screw caps on containers using a closure
cone 5 rotated by a motor 9, which is supplied with current or voltage through a
switching device 11, a sensor 13 which determines the current or voltage supplied to
the motor, a torque sensor 15 which determines the moment acting upon the screw
closure 3, and an angle of rotation sensor 17 which determines the angular position of
the cone. According to Spatz’s method, the screw closure is screwed down on the
1 US Pat. No. 5,321,935, issued June 21, 1994 to Spatz et al.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007