Appeal 2006-1521
Application 09/815,877
point out that Berke does not teach forming reclosable inlet ports (Br. 7).
According to Appellants, resealing inlet ports is not a problem that Berke
addresses or solves (Br. 7).
The Examiner rebuts Appellants’ arguments by stating that
Dickerhoff’s “snap, comprises a metal fastener, which is understood by the
Examiner to be a semi-rigid material” (Answer 4). According to the
Examiner, because Dickerhoff’s closure mechanism (i.e., “snaps”) is semi-
rigid, then it could be “used within a semi-rigid structure because of its [the
snaps’] own semi-rigid properties” (Answer 4).
Appellants counter that there is no reasonable expectation of success
for the combination of Dickerhoff with Berke (Reply Br. 4). Specifically,
Appellants argue that the Examiner failed to explain any reasonable
expectation of success for combining Dickerhoff’s snap closure mechanism
with Berke’s semi-rigid collar.
We agree with Appellants’ ultimate determination that the § 103(a)
rejection cannot be sustained.
Berke discloses that the collars are semi-rigid (col. 5, ll. 12-16, col. 6,
ll. 40-42). Dickerhoff discloses that “adhesive strip, double-sided tape,
snaps, zippers, folding flaps, or a ziplock-type seal, etc.” may be used to
close the inlet ports (col. 3, ll. 13-16). As Appellants indicate, Dickerhoff
discloses closing mechanisms that appear to involve bringing the opposing
sides of the inlet ports together to form the closure (Br. 7).
Based on Dickerhoff’s and Berke’s teachings, we find no suggestion
to combine Dickerhoff’s flexible tube closure mechanisms (i.e., “snaps”)
with Berke’s semi-rigid collar. The Examiner’s conclusion that it would
have been obvious “to provide a snap as taught by Dickerhoff [ ] as a means
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007