Appeal 2007-1325
Application 10/065,722
1 10 is secured to cap 4 via catch détente 7 as the mounting plug 50 in Dart is
2 inset in the mounting recess 46 (FF. 14) to allow the drink opening to be
3 resealed by the attached drink plug.
4 We find that Dart's lid has no additional or different function vis-à-vis
5 these prior art tabs when used in connection with conventional lids, such as
6 found in Freek or Dart’s cap 12.
7
8 3. Analogous Art
9 We consider Waterbury, Mueller, Aichert, De Mars and Lane all to
10 be analogous art because each is reasonably pertinent to the problem with
11 which Dart was concerned. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986,
12 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (any need or problem known in the field of
13 endeavor at the time of invention and addressed by the patent can provide a
14 reason for combining the elements in the manner claimed). See KSR, 127
15 S. Ct. at 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1397.
16 The Dart lid attempts to solve the same problem as the prior art,
17 namely, reclosure of a drink opening once opened. Dart describes the
18 problem to be solved as providing a closure “that can be opened to dispense
19 a beverage and closed to effectively seal the container against spillage”
20 through multiple cycles (Br. 6, 7).
21 Likewise, each of the closures in Waterbury, Mueller, Aichert, Lane
22 and De Mars provide a hinge or strap portion connected to the lid to allow
23 the closure to be articulated between opened and closed positions over a
24 drink opening thereby dealing and resolving the same problem posed to
25 Dart.
28
Page: Previous 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013