Appeal No. 2006-2630 Page 9
Application No. 10/255,014
the straw hole. Reply Brief, p. 2. The appellants attempt to argue that this
limitation is a structural limitation that distinguishes the claimed product from the
product of Wild, which uses no temporary seal. We fail to see how the
requirement that the temporary seal applied to the seal material has a width creates
a structural limitation on the resulting product. Rather, this limitation further
defines the process by which the product is made by requiring that during the step
of applying the temporary seal, the seal is applied with a certain width. Further,
because the temporary seal is not discernable in the resulting product of claim 1,
we do not find that the recitation of the width of the seal creates any structural
difference between the seal of claim 1 and the seal of Wild. Accordingly, we
affirm the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by Wild.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007