Appeal No. 2005-1904
Application No. 10/041,075
an internal closure in the form of an imperforate crown cap
secured to said bottle;
wherein said external cap substantially encloses said crown
cap when said external cap is threaded onto said neck of said
bottle.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidence of obviousness:
Podel 2,131,969 Oct. 4, 1938
Staples 2,390,561 Dec. 11, 1945
Appellant's claimed invention is directed to a dual closure
for a ceramic bottle comprising an external ceramic cap and an
imperforate crown cap that is secured to the bottle. The ceramic
cap encloses the crown cap when it is threaded onto the neck of
the bottle.
Appealed claims 1-3 and 5 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Podel in view of Staples.
Appellant submits at page 3 of the brief that "[t]he claims
stand or fall together." Accordingly, all the appealed claims
stand or fall together with claim 1.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Since we fully concur
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007