Appeal 2007-1325
Application 10/065,722
1 Appellants argue Waterbury is nonanalogous art because it deals with
2 a closure for a soda can and “not a recloseable lid for use on a cup”, and thus
3 deals with a completely different problem. (Br. 6) But, the prior art teaches
4 that a lid, such as described by Dart, may cap a soda can to provide a
5 recloseable feature for the can once opened. More specifically, Aichert
6 discloses a separate recloseable plastic lid 4 used on a soda can (FF. 12-15),
7 further evidencing that liquid containers, such as a cup or a can, share the
8 same reclosure problems.
9 Appellants further argue, “the problem to be solved by
10 …Waterbury… is having a separate flip-top tab closure which must be
11 discarded after the can has been opened.” (Br. 6) To the contrary,
12 Waterbury discloses the closure as “resealable to store unused contents”
13 (Waterbury col. 1, ll. 35), and furthermore contemplates plural embodiments
14 (Figs. 2,3,7) for maintaining the closure in a “folded back” condition to hold
15 it in a “fully open position while the contents are discharged”. (Waterbury,
16 col. 3, ll. 5-7, 19-23) Thus, Appellants’ assertion of Waterbury being
17 limited to a closure “which must be discarded after the can has been opened”
18 (Br. 6) is believed to be incorrect.
19
29
Page: Previous 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013