Appeal Number: 2006-1706
Application Number: 10/216,111
container with which the jar is used other than, as argued by
the appellants (brief, pages 7-8), to require that the container
is a tubular composite container that has a flexible end closure
and can be used to vacuum package products. Beery’s cap can be
used with other tubular jars, including a composite jar having a
flexible vacuum seal at the top of a neck that is higher than
the lowest part of the cap’s downwardly extending central
portion when the cap is fastened to the jar, such that the
downwardly extending portion exerts a biasing force on the
vacuum seal. Also, the cap can be used with a jar having a
vacuum seal that is convex upwardly such that the downwardly
extending portion biases the vacuum seal.
The appellants point out that “Beery does not teach a one-
piece, polymer overcap for a tubular composite container having
at least one flexible end closure attached to an end thereof and
being of a type in which products can be vacuum packaged, as
recited by the pending claims” (brief, page 5). The appellants
set forth (brief, page 6) the modifications to Berry argued by
the examiner, but the appellants do not address the examiner’s
rationale (answer, pages 3-4) regarding those modifications and
explain why the examiner’s conclusion that Berry would have
fairly suggested them to one of ordinary skill in the art is
erroneous.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007