Appeal 2007-0672
Application 10/399,702
patentable if the modification was within the capabilities of one
skilled in the art, unless the claimed ranges “produce a new and
unexpected result which is different in kind and not merely in
degree from the results of the prior art.”
Additionally, as stated in In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 1578, 16 USPQ2d
1934, 1936 (Fed. Cir. 1990):
The law is replete with cases in which the difference between
the claimed invention and the prior art is some range or other
variable within the claims. . . . These cases have consistently
held that in such a situation, the applicant must show that the
particular range is critical, generally by showing that the
claimed range achieves unexpected results relative to the prior
art range [citations omitted].
ANALYSIS
Claim construction
Claim 11 of the instant application recites: “a closure for a package of
portable beverages having an opening with a neck rim.” We construe the
phrase “for a package of portable beverages having an opening with a neck
rim” to be language of intended use. Therefore, claim 11 is directed to a
closure having a closure body made of a first plastic material and a sealing
element having a deformable collar made of a second plastic material that
protrudes inwardly. However, claim 11 further recites that the collar of the
closure protrudes inwardly:
. . . to be realeasably engaged with the neck rim of
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013