Appeal 2007-0135
Application 10/138,088
1 combined teachings and suggestions of Crisci, Guinet, Luch, and Ohmi
2 would have suggested the first seal contacting and being compressed by the
3 top surface of the beverage container prior to the second seal contacting the
4 top surface of the beverage container. With respect to independent claims
5 26 and 34, the issue does not additionally turn on whether the prior art would
6 have suggested the inner and outer webs as advanced by Appellant (Br. 20,
7 21, and 23-25), as these limitations are not present in independent claims 26
8 and 34.
9
10 FINDINGS OF FACT
11 1. Appellant invented a closure for a beverage container. The closure
12 includes a liner coupled to the inside of the cap of the closure
13 member. The liner includes concentric sealing rings adapted to
14 engage the rim of the beverage container. (Specification 2). As
15 shown in Fig. 6, inner ring 21 extends to a lower height than outer
16 ring 22.
17 2. Figure 6 of Crisci shows several depending sealing flanges 35
18 which engage the top surface of the inclined annular flange 36,
19 which may be tapered. Flexible sealing flanges 35 are of different
20 diameters and depend from the top portion 28 of the closure in
21 different lengths. (Crisci, col. 4, ll. 41-53).
22 3. From this disclosure of Crisci, we agree with Appellant (Reply
23 Br. 2) that, although the flange 36 of Crisci may not be tapered, it
24 is always inclined, and the flanges 35 contact the inclined flange
25 36 at the same time. In Crisci, the sealing flanges protrude from
26 the cap for the beverage container. (Crisci, Fig. 6).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013