Appeal 2007-2873
Application 09/800,793
The Appellants argue that Williams is concerned only with sealing
between the gasket and the jar, not between the gasket and the closure
(Reply Br. 5). It would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the pressing of Williams’ gasket by the annular bead (fig. 4) would
improve the seal on both sides of the gasket.
The Appellants argue that the combined applied prior art would teach
a conventional closure that has an annular sealing band but no parting line
flash or mismatch (Br. 10; Reply Br. 4-5). The Appellants acknowledge that
the machining for removing the parting line flash or mismatch was known to
add cost to the product and to reduce the manufacturer’s profits (Spec. 2).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led by market forces
to eliminate that machining along with its cost. See KSR Int’l. Co. v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1742, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)(“When
there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a
finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill
has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical
grasp.”). Williams would have indicated to one of ordinary skill in the art
that the pressing of the annular bead into the gasket insures an effective seal
even though there are slight irregularities in the relative dimensions of the
jar and the closure (p. 1, ll. 33-36, 47-52; p. 2, ll. 40-44; 84-87). Williams
does not disclose that the slight irregularities referred to include parting line
flash or mismatch. However, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
the Appellants’ invention would have appreciated that parting line flash or
mismatch is a slight irregularity in the relative dimensions of the container
and jar at that point. The person of ordinary skill in the art, therefore, would
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013