Appeal 2007-1325
Application 10/065,722
1 Rejection of previously allowed claims
2 In light of foregoing, we reject claims 4-7, 31-33, 64, 78, and 79 under
3 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of
4 Freek, Waterbury, Mueller, Aichert, De Mars, and Lane.
5 Claims 4, 5, 6, 31, 32, 33, 78, and 79 all cover the feature of a drink
6 opening in a lid having a well and a drink plug received within the well by
7 press fitting it to the well.
8 Freek teaches a plug or closure formed within the drink opening 20
9 which is removed prior to consumption (Freek, col. 3 ll. 63-65). Further, we
10 read the opening in the sheet material forming the lid in Freek as a “well”.
11 Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary Tenth Edition (1996) defines “well” inter
12 alia, as 4: an open space extending vertically through floors of a structure;
13 6b: a deep vertical hole. Since the opening extends though the entire
14 thickness of the sheet material, it is read as a “deep” hole.
15 Waterbury, among others, teach a closure element 31 having a
16 depending portion 36 complementarily shaped with the pour opening in the
17 lid so as to create a reusable press fitting closure. (Waterbury, Col. 5,
18 ll. 30-34)
19 One having ordinary skill in the art would modify the opening 20 in
20 Freek to include the reusable press fit closure of Waterbury for the reasons
21 set forth supra. Regarding the periphery well wall recited in claims 6 and
22 33, we note the thickness of the thermal plastic material forming the lid 10 in
23 Freek is read as the periphery well wall.
24 The recitation in claim 7 of a bottom wall in the opening is met by the
25 teaching in Freek of a bottom wall extending from the peripheral wall in the
34
Page: Previous 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013