Appeal 2007-1858
Application 10/800,566
and other food products (col. 2, ll. 55-67). Prevot teaches employing its
novel dome on any size or shape of conventional high temperature resistant
blow-molded container (“wide mouth jars, or narrow neck bottles”),
especially those having “flexible panels” to “accommodate volumetric
changes in the hot-filled container after it has been sealed, capped and
cooled to ambient temperature” (col. 1, ll. 5-10 and col. 3, ll. 1-27). This
description embraces the high temperature resistant container having flexible
panels taught by Krishnakumar. Therefore, implicit in Prevot is that the
container of the type described in Krishnakumar is available or can be made
available in various sizes or shapes, including in the form of “wide mouth
jars.”
Accordingly, we concur with the Examiner that the combined
teachings of Krishnakumar and Prevot would have rendered the subject
matter defined by claims 3 through 21 obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103.
ORDER
The decision of the Examiner is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
AFFIRMED
clj
Venable LLP
P.O. Box 34385
Washington, DC 20043-9998
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Last modified: September 9, 2013