Appeal No. 2006-0445
Application 08/977,374
shrunk around said container rim to form a spill resistant cover upon exposure to the radiant
energy.
The references relied on by the examiner are:
Amberg et al. (Amberg) 3,955,699 May 11, 1976
Anderson et al. (Anderson) 5,113,479 May 12, 1992
Heilman et al. (Heilman)2 27337/67 Sep. 18, 1967
(published Australian Patent Specification)
The examiner has further relied on certain admissions by appellant in the following
documents (“admissions” documents):
amendment filed February 17, 2004 (page 13, last paragraph, to page 14, second paragraph);
reply brief filed August 24, 2000 (page 2, fifth full paragraph); and
supplemental appeal brief filed May 12, 2000 (pages 5 and 6).
The examiner has advanced the following grounds of rejection on appeal:
claims 36 through 38 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Heilman in view of Amberg further in view of the “admissions” documents (answer, pages 5-7);
and
claims 39, 40 and 42 through 46 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Heilman in view of Amberg further in view of the “admissions” documents as applied to
36 through 38 and 41, and further in view of Anderson (answer, pages 7-8).3
Appellant argues claims in four groups: claims 36 through 38, claims 39 and 40, claims
41, 44 and 46, and claims 42, 43 and 45 (brief, pages 3, 8, 11 and 12). We point out that
different grounds of rejection are applied to claim 41 and to claims 44 and 46 of the third group.
Thus, we decide this appeal based on appealed claims 36, 39, 41, 42 and 44 as representative of
the grounds of rejection and appellant’s groupings of claims. 37 CFR § 41.37(c)(1)(vii)
(September 2004).
We affirm.
2 This reference is referred to in the answer mailed August 10, 2004, the brief filed December
17, 2004, and the reply brief filed October 12, 2005, which we consider on appeal, as “Heilman
et al.,” listed on the document as “Applicant.” We will refer to the reference in that manner to
avoid confusion, noting that Sternau is listed on the document as the “Actual Inventor.”
3 The examiner withdrew the grounds of rejection based on the judicially created doctrine of
obviousness type double patenting in view of the terminal disclaimers filed on April 12, 2005
(answer, page 3).
- 2 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007