Appeal 2007-0135
Application 10/138,088
1 seal 14 is compressed before seal 12 contacts top surface 24b.
2 (Ohmi, col. 3, lines 12-18, col. 3, l. 65-col. 4, l. 3, and col. 4,
3 l. 56–col. 5, l. 12). Figure 7 of Ohmi shows frusto-conical rim 113
4 and flat crests on rims 112 and 114, as well as a flat top surface of
5 container 118.
6 11. Ohmi additionally discloses that in the press molding process, a
7 high pressure polyethylene was melted at 220° C., and introduced
8 to the underside of the metal shell, which was heated to
9 approximately 180° C. and was pressmolded into a liner having a
10 shape indicated in Ohmi, Figs. 1 and 2. (Ohmi, col. 6, l. 56 – col.
11 7, l. 1). The dimensions of the liner are indicated in Ohmi (col. 7,
12 ll. 4-11).
13 12. From the description in Ohmi, we find that the pressmolding
14 operation adhered the liner to the metal shell, due to the melting,
15 heating and pressure applied.
16
17 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
18 On appeal, Appellant bears the burden of showing that the Examiner
19 has not established a legally sufficient basis for combining the teachings of
20 the applied prior art. Appellant may sustain this burden by showing that,
21 where the Examiner relies on a combination of disclosures, the Examiner
22 failed to provide sufficient evidence to show that one having ordinary skill
23 in the art would have done what Appellant did. United States v. Adams, 383
24 U.S. 39 (1966); In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 987-988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336
25 (Fed. Cir. 2006); DyStar Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013