Appeal 2007-0135
Application 10/138,088
1 would contact the top surface of the beverage container before the outer seal
2 contacted the top surface of the beverage container. It follows that we agree
3 with Appellant (Br. 7) that the teachings and suggestions of Crisci, Guinet,
4 and Luch would not have suggested the invention of claim 1. Therefore, we
5 cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 17-25.
6 We turn next to the rejection of claims 2-16 and 26-42 under 35
7 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Crisci in view of Luch, Guinet,
8 and Ohmi. We turn first to independent claims 26 and 34. At the outset, we
9 make reference to our findings, supra, with respect to the teachings and
10 suggestions of Crisci, Guinet, and Luch. Turning to Ohmi, we find from
11 facts 11-12, that Ohmi describes adhering the liner to the cap. Accordingly,
12 we are not persuaded by Appellant's assertion (Br. 6) that in Ohmi, the liner
13 appears, at best, to be juxtaposed to the cap. In addition, we find from fact
14 10 that in Ohmi, Fig. 2 shows inner seal or rim 14 and outer seal or rim 12
15 do depend from liner 10. In addition, inner seal 14 extends below the
16 bottom of outer seal 12 and contacts top surface 24b of the beverage
17 container 18 and is compressed before seal member 12 contacts the top
18 surface of the beverage container. Thus, we find that Ohmi meets the
19 limitations of claims 26 and 34, and we consider the other references to be
20 surplusage.
21 We turn next to claim 2. Appellant's contentions are directed to why
22 Appellant considers it unobvious to modify Crisci. We will sustain the
23 rejection of claim 2 because the liner 10 of Ohmi, which is adhered to the
24 top wall of the cap, is in the form of a web that terminates at the first seal
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013