Appeal 2007-0135
Application 10/138,088
1 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crisci in view of Guinet, Luch, and
2 Ohmi. The rejection of claims 3-5 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(second paragraph)
3 has been withdrawn by the Examiner (Answer 2).
4
5 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
6 appeal is:
7 Guinet US 2,768,762 Oct. 30, 1956
8 Ohmi US 4,415,096 Nov. 15, 1983
9 Crisci US 4,658,977 Apr. 21, 1987
10 Luch US 5,415,306 May 16, 1995
11
12
13 We begin with the rejection of claims 1 and 17-25 under 35 U.S.C.
14 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crisci in view of Guinet and Luch.
15 With respect to claim 1, Appellant contends that in figures 6-8,
16 sealing flanges 35 engage inclined annular flange which may be tapered, and
17 that Crisci shows in figures 7 and 8 that the flanges 35 contact sloping flange
18 at the same time. (Br. 7). Appellant contends (id.), that there is no teaching
19 in Crisci, Guinet or Luch that the first seal ring is compressed prior to the
20 second seal ring, as required by claim 1. Appellant further contends that it
21 would not have been obvious to apply the closure of Crisci to a container
22 having no inclination as taught by Luch. (Br. 8).
23 With respect to the rejection of claims 2-16 and 26-42, Appellant
24 contends, with respect to independent claim 26, that there is no disclosure in
25 Crisci, Guinet, Luch, and Ohmi of the first seal ring engaging the top surface
26 of the beverage container and being compressed by contact with the top
27 surface of the beverage container prior to the second seal ring contacting the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013