Appeal 2007-0672
Application 10/399,702
is capable of performing the functions recited in independent claims 11, 24,
33, and 35.
Therefore, we will sustain the rejection of claims 11, 24, and 33 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Theis. We will also sustain the
rejection as it is directed to claims 12 to 21 and 25 to 35 because the
Appellant has not argued the separate patentability of these claims.
We have found that Roeder discloses a closure that is not only capable
of performing the functions recited in claims 11 and 35 but is disclosed as
performing these functions.
Therefore, we will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 11 under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Roeder. We will also sustain this
rejection as it is directed to claim 12 because the Appellant has not argued
the separate patentability of this claim.
We will also sustain the rejection of claims 11, 12, and 35 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Roeder for the same reasons stated
above in regard to the anticipation rejection noting that anticipation is the
epitome of obviousness.
We have found that Krueger discloses a closure not only capable of
performing the functions recited in claim 11 but is discloses as performing
these functions. We note that, contrary to the contentions of the Appellant,
all that is necessary is that Krueger discloses a device that “reads on” the
device claimed. It is not necessary that the Examiner prove that the Krueger
device obeys the Ideal Gas Law as understood by the Appellant. Therefore,
13
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013