Appeal 2007-0672
Application 10/399,702
Glover US 4,054,221 Oct. 18, 1977
Theis EP 0 911 273 A1 Apr. 28, 1999
Appellant contends that the Examiner’s rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§112, second paragraph is unfounded.
Appellant further contends that none of Theis, Roeder or Krueger
discloses a collar that protrudes inwardly and has a pressure surface exposed
to inner pressure such that the collar responds to pressure by deforming and
becoming increasingly supported on the neck rim of a container and
sealingly closing the opening in the container.
Appellant also contends that there is no reason to modify the Roeder
device to include ribs instead of beads. The Examiner takes Official Notice
of the equivalence of ribs and beads for their use in the closure art and holds
that the selection of any of these known equivalents to reinforce a structural
element would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Appellant also argues that there is no evidence to modify the Roeder
reference such that the collar has a shore hardness in the region of
approximately 20 to approximately 80 shore A. The Examiner contends that
it was within the skill of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to select an optimum hardness value for the sealing
element.
Appellant contends that Glover does not disclose a hinge and that if
the teachings of Glover and Roeder were combined as suggested by the
Examiner such would destroy the operation of Glover.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013