Appeal 2007-2873
Application 09/800,793
rounded bead (12) that extends around the closure and protrudes from the
adjacent surface (13) (p. 2, ll. 13-18, 25-30; fig. 4). The bead squeezes into
a gasket (11) and presses the gasket against the internal surface of the mouth
of the jar, thereby insuring an effective seal (p. 1. ll. 47-52; p. 2, ll. 40-44,
84-90). Williams teaches that in the prior art the seal is not certain due to
slight irregularities in the relative dimensions of the jar and its closure
member (p. 1, ll. 30-36).
The Appellants argue that Williams is limited to glass jars (Br. 10;
Reply Br. 3-4). The Appellants are incorrect. Williams teaches that the jar
and the closure can be made of other suitable materials (p. 1, ll. 85-88; p. 2,
ll. 5-8).
The Appellants argue that the prior art removal of the parting line
flash or mismatch teaches away from providing a closure having parting line
flash or mismatch, and that Williams does not disclose a threaded closure or
molded plastic construction2 and is silent regarding parting line flash or
mismatch (Br. 8; Reply Br. 3-4). That argument is deficient in that the
Appellants are attacking the prior art individually when the rejection is based
on a combination of prior art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426, 208
USPQ 871, 882 (CCPA 1981); In re Young, 403 F.2d 754, 757-58, 159
USPQ 725, 728 (CCPA 1968).
2 The Appellants’ claims do not expressly require molded construction, and
independent claims 9 and 12 do not require threaded engagement.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013