Appeal No. 2005-1904
Application No. 10/041,075
with the examiner's reasoned analysis and application of the
prior art, as well as his cogent disposition of the arguments
raised by appellant, we will adopt the examiner's reasoning as
our own in sustaining the rejection of record. We add the
following for emphasis only.
Appellant does not dispute the examiner's factual
determination that Podel discloses a glass bottle having an
imperforate crown cap secured to the opening of the bottle, and
an external metallic cap that screws onto the bottle over the
crown cap. As recognized by the examiner, the external cap of
Podel is metallic, rather than ceramic, as presently claimed.
However, the examiner properly points out that Staples describes
the advantages of employing a glass cap in lieu of a metal cap.
In relevant part, Staples teaches that glass provides an
advantage over metal in terms of cost, i.e., saving valuable
metal, while further obviating corrosion. Accordingly, based on
the collective teachings of Podel and Staples, we agree with the
examiner that it would have been obvious for one of ordinary
skill in the art to replace the external metal cap of Podel with
an external ceramic cap for the advantages described in Staples.
The principal argument advanced by appellant is that the
combination of Podel and Staples does not result in a bottle and
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007