Appeal 2007-0672
Application 10/399,702
Rejection under 35 U.S.C. §112
The Examiner is of the opinion that the subject matter of claims 11 to
35 is unclear because it is not clear when the closure sealingly closes the
opening.
We have construed the language to be directed to a closure which is
capable of sealingly closing an opening. Therefore, we do not find the
claims 11 to 35 confusing in this respect and thus will not sustain this
rejection.
In regard to the Examiner contention that it is unclear what structure is
represented by the recitation of “hammer like” in claim 32. In our view, a
person of ordinary skill in the art would find this language clear in view of
the disclosure in the specification on page 4 of a hammer-like projection 25
in conjunction with the depiction in Figure 4 of projection 25. As such, we
will not sustain the rejection as it is directed to claim 32.
We are also of the view that even though the phrase “the inner surface
of the sealing element” in claim 14, lacks explicit antecedent basis, it is
nonetheless clear that the claim is referring to the inner surface of the sealing
element recited in claim 11. Therefore, we will not sustain the rejection as it
is directed to claim 14.
Theis, Roeder and Krueger and Glover
We have determined that the independent claims are directed to a
closure that is capable of performing the functions recited in independent
claims 11, 24, 33 and 35. We have found that Theis discloses a closure that
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013