Appeal 2007-0672
Application 10/399,702
ISSUES
(1) The first issue is one of claim construction, i.e. is the claimed
subject matter directed to a closure or a closure in combination with a
container?
(2) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in holding that
claims 11 to 35 are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph?
(3) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that the
disclosures of Theis and Roeder disclose the invention as claimed and that
Krueger disclosing the invention as claimed except for the material of the
sealing element?
(4) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in taking Official
Notice of the equivalence of ribs and beads for their use in the closure art
and holding 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?
(5) Has Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
Glover discloses a hinge?
(6) Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in finding that
modifying the device disclosed in Glover with the teachings of Roeder
would not have destroyed the operation of Glover?
(7) Has the Appellant shown that the Examiner erred in holding that
it would have been within the person of ordinary skill to select an optimum
shore hardness value for the collar?
FINDINGS OF FACT
Appellant invented a closure that includes a sealing element that has a
shore hardness, which preferably lies in the region of 20 to 80 shore A
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013