Appeal 2007-1856
Application 10/808,652
2. Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Gerondale in view of Baudin.
ISSUES
The first issue before us is whether the Specification, as originally filed,
conveys with reasonable clarity to those skilled in the art that the aperture 38 in the
neck 18 of the nozzle 12 has a concave surface subtending it, and that the radius of
this concave surface is equal to that of the convex surface on the seat of the cap 30.
The second issue is whether Appellants have sustained their burden of
showing that the Examiner erred in rejecting claim 1 as being unpatentable under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) over Gerondale in view of Baudin. In particular, Appellants
argue that the proposed combination would not result in an operable device
(Appeal Br. 5).
FINDINGS OF FACT
We find the following facts by a preponderance of the evidence:
1. The Specification as originally filed on March 24, 2004 fails to describe
that: (1) the aperture 38 in the neck 18 has a subtending concave surface, and (2)
the radius of this concave surface is equal to the radius of the convex surface on
the seat of the cap.
2. Appellants amended claim 1 on July 25, 2005 to include additional
limitations (as underlined): (1) a concave surface subtending said aperture; (2) said
top having a seat, including a convex surface, and (3) the concave and concave
surfaces having equal radii for enabling a sealed engagement with one another
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013