Appeal 2007-0293
Application 10/630,982
The Examiner contends that the “exploded view” of Appellant’s
Figure 1 shows that the lower section of the upper shield engages and holds
container 18 in view of the overlapping contact (Answer 7).
The Examiner contends that one of ordinary skill in the art would
have been aware of the pervasive recycling of plastic scrap to reduce waste
and enhance cost-effectiveness of plastic resources, as evidenced by White,
and used any scrap material to make a shield of the same material (Answer
7-8).
Accordingly, the dispositive issues in this appeal are as follows: (1)
does Figure 1 provide support for added (non-original) claims 17-20?; and
(2) would it have been within the ordinary skill in this art to have recycled
scrap plastic from making the container to form the shield, where the shield
was known to be made from the same material as the container?
We determine that the Examiner has established that Figure 1 does not
provide sufficient support for the language recited in added (non-original)
claims 17-20. We also determine that the Examiner has established a prima
facie case of obviousness in view of the reference evidence, which Appellant
has not adequately rebutted by their arguments. Therefore we AFFIRM all
rejections in this appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the Answer, as
well as those reasons set forth below.
OPINION
A. The Rejection under § 112, ¶ 1
The Examiner finds that claims 17-20 recite “the shields do not hold a
threaded engagement portion of a finish of the containers” and this language
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013