Appeal 2007-0672
Application 10/399,702
we will sustain the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Krueger.
We will also sustain this rejection as it is directed to claims 12, 13, 16,
18, 20, and 21, because the Appellants have not argued the separate
patentability of these claims.
We will sustain the rejection of claims 11 to 14, 16 to 18, 20, 21, 24 to
30 and 35 as being unpatentable over Glover in view of Roeder, because we
have determine that the provision of the sealing element disclosed in Roeder
would not have destroyed the operation of the Glover device but rather
would have added additional sealing ability to the Glover device.
The argued dependent claims
The Appellant has argued the separate patentability of claims 15, 22
and 23, and, therefore, we will address these claims individually.
Claim 15 recites that the upper and lower part of the closure is
connected via a hinge. We have found that Glover discloses the recited
hinge and that the placement of the Roeder sealing element will not destroy
the operation of the Glover closure. Therefore, we will sustain the rejection
of claim 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Glover in
view of Roeder.
Claim 22, which recites that a plurality of ribs support the collar
differs from the disclosure of Roeder in that Roeder discloses a bead rather
than a collar to support the collar. The Appellant has not challenged the
Examiner’s taking of Official Notice of the equivalence of ribs and beads for
their use in the closure art and the finding that the selection of these
equivalents to reinforce a structural element would be within the level of
14
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013