Appeal No. 2006-3175
Application No. 10/419,601
that one of ordinary skill in the art would interpret the size limitation of claim 1 so
as to cover elastic bands of the size addressed by Lyon.
In light of the above, we conclude that the examiner has failed to make the
case that the elastic bands of Lyon are “sized to fit snugly on a baby bottle” as
called for in claim 1. It follows that the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 and 4
depending therefrom, as being anticipated by Lyon cannot be sustained. Inasmuch
as the rejection of claims 3, 5 and 6 as being unpatentable over Lyon is grounded
in part on the examiner’s finding that the elastic bands of Lyon are “sized to fit
snugly on a baby bottle,” this rejection also cannot be sustained.
We turn our attention now to the rejection of claims 7-20 as being
unpatentable over Lyon in view of Ricks. Ricks is directed to a convenient
mechanism for identifying a baby bottle 12, in the form of a collar 10 and label 34,
with which infants cannot easily tamper and which facilitates frequent sterilization
of the bottle 12 (col. 2, ll. 32-35). In practice, the baby’s name is written on the
label 34 and label 34 is applied to area 32 on flange 28 of the collar 10 (col. 2, ll.
35-36). The edge of label 34 butts against a raised ridge 30 on the exterior face of
flange 28 so as to impede removal of label 34 by scraping actions, thereby
rendering removal of the label difficult for infants (col. 2, ll. 41-46). According to
Ricks, “[c]ollars 10 may be provided in a plurality of different colors to provide a
further discriminant” (col. 2, ll. 36-38).
In rejecting claims 7-20, the examiner takes the position that “it would have
been obvious to one in the art to modify Lyon by attaching the elastic bands to
baby bottles since this would allow the elastic bands to be used on a wider range of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013