Ex Parte Hathaway et al - Page 4


                 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