Appeal 2007-0135
Application 10/138,088
1 choice expedient, since Appellant has not disclosed that these limitations
2 have solved any stated problem.
3 We are in agreement with Appellant that the Examiner's
4 conclusionary statements are not a substitute for evidence in the record. We
5 Remand this application for the Examiner to separately address each of the
6 above listed claims, by claim number, and provide an explanation as to why
7 the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention would have
8 been obvious to an artisan. If the Examiner considers the claimed sizes,
9 shapes, angles, etc. to be within the skill of an artisan, or considers the
10 claimed sizes, shapes, angles, etc. to be result dependent variables that are
11 within the level of skill of an artisan, (see In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 105
12 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) and In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215
13 (CCPA 1980)), then the Examiner should individually address the language
14 in each claim and articulate reasons why the examiner considers each claim
15 to have been obvious.
16 New ground of Rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
17 being anticipated by Ohmi, under the provisions of 37 C.F.R. § 41.50(b).
18 We reject claim 1 in view of Ohmi's description of having inner and
19 outer extending sealing rims 12, 14, which depend from liner 10 of cap 4,
20 and in which rim 14 extends below the crest of rim 12, and contacts and is
21 compressed by the top surface 24b of container 18, prior to the rim 12
22 contacting top surface 24b (facts 9 and 10).
23
24
25
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013