Appeal 2007-2806
Application 10/617,036
The Appellants argue, regarding claims 2 and 4 (Br. 9):
[A]ccording to conventional thinking, a non-resealable seal would in
fact be considered inferior to a resealable screw cap as implied by
Nohara. Furthermore, the ring-pull of Esposito is chosen for its
synergy with use of a metal can, and would not normally be chosen
for a plastic bottle.
The Appellants’ “would not normally be chosen” language indicates that
ring-pull bottle closures, although not normally chosen, were known in the
art. Moreover, the Examiner took official notice in the final rejection
(mailed Sep. 1, 2005, p. 3) that bottle ring-pull closures were known in the
art to provide easy bottle opening, and the Appellants have not challenged
that official notice. Consequently, we accept it as being correct.
Accordingly, we conclude that it would have been prima facie obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to use a ring-pull closure on Nohara’s bottle
to provide easy opening of the bottle as argued by the Examiner.
With respect to claim 6 the Examiner argues that it would have been
prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to make Nohara’s can
out of metal instead of plastic to make it stronger and more durable (Ans. 8).
The Appellants argue that making Nohara’s bottle from metal “would be
contrary to the explicit teachings of Nohara which presents a solution for
improving gas impermeability of plastic bottles as a preferred option over
the metal containers discussed in the background section” (Br. 10). Nohara
does not disclose that plastic bottles are a preferred option over metal
containers. What Nohara discloses is that polyester bottles “are considerably
inferior to metal cans or glass bottles as gas barrier vessels for storing and
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013