Appeal No. 2005-1227 Page 4
Application No. 10/099,321
temporarily fastened to the container by screwing the closure down onto the container 1
with a first predetermined torque M1.2 At the point when the application moment M1 is
reached, Spatz’s control device 19 activates the angular sensor to begin measuring the
angle of rotation of the closure 3, thereby setting the point at which application moment
M1 is reached as a measurement starting point of a rotational angle. Spatz’s device
continues to screw the closure 3 on the container in a final fastening step until the
predetermined angle of rotation W is reached. Although Spatz does not directly state
what torque is applied to the closure cone 5 after the application moment M1 has been
reached, Spatz does indicate, in column 6, lines 15-25, that, unless the cap or container
is defective, the applied torque should increase above the application moment M1
during the final fastening step prior to reaching the desired angle of rotation W. We
conclude from this that, for an acceptable fastening, the torque applied during the final
fastening step, that is, after the application moment M1 has been reached, will be
different from, and, more particularly, higher than (see claim 7), the torque applied
during the temporary fastening step or application moment M1. The fastening is
determined to be acceptable when the angle of rotation W is reached, so long as the
torque increases sufficiently after the application moment M1 is reached.
2 While Spatz does not specify in what manner (e.g., gradual increase, application of a constant
torque or a sudden spike) the application moment M1 is reached, we find nothing in claim 6 which
specifies how such torque is applied or reached. In particular, claim 6 does not require that the fastening
moment in either the temporary fastening step or the final fastening step be constant, as implied on page 2
of the reply brief.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007