Appeal 2007-0135
Application 10/138,088
1 ring and causes the first seal ring to surround the web; see Fig. 1 of Ohmi
2 and Figs. 10-11 of Appellant.
3 We turn next to claim 3. We will not sustain the rejection of claim 3
4 because there is no evidence in the record to establish the obviousness of
5 providing Ohmi with a central dome in the cap and liner. The domed
6 portion, unlabeled in the top portion 28 of Crisci would not have suggested a
7 dome in both the top and the liner, as recited in claim 3.
8 We turn next to claims 4 and 5. We will not sustain the rejection of
9 these claims due to their dependency from claim 3.
10 We turn next to claim 9. We will sustain the rejection of claim 9
11 because the depending sealing rims 12 and 14 of Ohmi meet the claimed
12 profile heights, as shown in Fig. 2 of Ohmi.
13 We turn next to claim 13. We will sustain the rejection of claim 13
14 because liner 10 of Ohmi extends between the two seal rings 12, 14. See
15 Figs. 1-2 of Ohmi.
16 We turn next to claim 16. We will sustain the rejection of claim 16
17 because the liner 10 of Ohmi meets the claimed outer web. See Fig. 1 of
18 Ohmi.
19 We turn next to claim 27. In Ohmi, we find that top surface 24b is not
20 flat. However, we find that in Figs. 8 and 9 of Ohmi, the top surface of the
21 container is flat, at least in the central portion. Accordingly, we will sustain
22 the rejection of claim 27.
23 We turn next to the rejection of claim 28. We will sustain the
24 rejection of claim 28 because the rim 114 of Ohmi is of a frusto-conical
25 shape, as illustrated in Figs. 7-8 where rim 114 will contact the top surface
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013