Ex Parte Allen

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Mar 27, 2019

13686593 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Mar. 27, 2019)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
13/686,593 11/27/2012
28078 7590 03/27/2019
MAGINOT, MOORE & BECK, LLP
One Indiana Square, Suite 2200
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46204
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
David 0. Allen
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2225-0001 9564
EXAMINER
WITTENSCHLAEGER, THOMAS M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3731
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/27/2019 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
ExparteDAVID 0. ALLEN
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
Technology Center 3700
Before JILL D. HILL, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
HILL, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
David 0. Allen ("Appellant") 1 appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from
the Examiner's final decision rejecting claims 1-19. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b ).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
1 Appellant identifies the real party in interest as the inventor, David 0.
Allen. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
BACKGROUND
Appellant's invention relates to a container and closure assembly.
Spec. ,r 2. Claims 1, 13, and 19 are independent. Claims 1 and 19,
reproduced below, illustrate the claimed subject matter:
1. A closure for selectively covering a container of a
product, the container having a body defining an opening for
access to the product within the container and a chime around the
opening, the chime having an under surface facing away from the
opening and extending radially outward from the container body,
the closure comprising:
a top panel configured to cover the opening of the
container, the top panel having a periphery;
a continuous circumferential skirt integral with said top
panel and extending from said periphery away from said top
panel, said skirt forming a cylindrical structure that is radially
offset from the body of the container when the closure is
covering the container opening to define a uniform radial gap
between said cylindrical structure of said skirt and the chime
when the closure is covering the container opening; and
a pair of latch elements defined in diametrically opposite
portions of said skirt, said pair of latch elements being the only
latch elements of said skirt, each latch element including a lug
projecting radially inward from and in fixed relation to said
cylindrical structure of said skirt, said lug positioned and
configured to engage the under surface of the chime when the
closure is covering the container opening,
wherein the skirt is continuous across said pair of latch
elements and is flexible so that pulling one of said portions of
said skirt away from the container pulls the lug of the latch
element at said one portion radially away from the container a
radial distance sufficient to disengage said lug from the under
surface of the chime.
19. A method for removing a closure from a container
in which the container includes a body defining a circular
opening and a chime around the opening, and in which the
2
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
closure includes a top panel configured to cover the opening of
the container, a continuous circumferential skirt integral with and
extending from the periphery of the top panel, the skirt forming
a cylindrical structure that is radially offset from the body of the
container when the closure is covering the container opening to
define a uniform radial gap between the cylindrical structure of
the skirt and the chime, and a pair of latch elements defined in
diametrically opposite portions of said skirt, said pair of latch
elements being the only latch elements of said skirt, each latch
element configured to engage the under surface of the chime, the
method comprising:
pulling the skirt at one of the latch elements away from the
container;
as the skirt moves away from the container at the one latch
element while pulling the skirt at the one of the latch elements 2,
reducing the gap between the skirt and the chime at portions of
the skirt adjacent the other of the pair of latch elements;
thereafter pulling the skirt at the one of the latch elements
further away from the container until the one latch element
disengages the chime; and
pulling the closure upward at the one latch element to
disengage the other latch element from the chime.
REJECTIONS
I. Claims 1, 2, 4---6, 9, 11, 13, 14, and 16-18 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith (US 5,348,181, iss. Sept.
20, 1994). Final Act. 2.
II. Claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, 15, and 19 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith. Final Act. 7.
2 The term "one of the latch elements" may be intended to read "one latch
element" for consistency within the claim.
3
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
ANALYSIS
Rejection I: Anticipation Based on Smith
Claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18
Appellant argues claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 as a group.
Appeal Br. 7-14. We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 11,
13, 14, 17, and 18 stand of fall with claim 1.
Cylindrical Skirt
Claim 1 recites, in part, "a continuous circumferential skirt integral
with said top panel and extending from said periphery away from said top
panel, said skirt forming a cylindrical structure." Appeal Br. 15 (Claims
App'x).
In rejecting claim 1 as anticipated, the Examiner finds that Smith
discloses a continuous circumferential skirt 16 forming a cylindrical
structure. Final Act. 3 ( citing Smith, Figs. 2, 5).
Appellant argues, inter alia, that outer wall 16 in Smith's Figure 2 is
"described in Smith as 'a generally inverted U-shaped cross-section which
defines an annular receiving channel 18 around the entire periphery of the
lid 10. "' Appeal Br. 7 ( citing Smith 4: 19-22). According to Appellant, this
disclosure of "Smith describes a toroidal shape," not a continuous cylindrical
structure. Id. Appellant contends that, moreover, the embodiment of
Smith's Figures 5-8 has the same toroidal shape because Smith uses the
same reference numerals to refer to various elements, with the only
difference being "the tabs used to latch the lid onto the cup." Id. at 7-8.
Appellant concludes that Figure 5 shows an element labeled 22, which
4
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
Smith designates as "rim 22," not a skirt, and, in any event, element 22 "is
not continuous, but interrupted by the hinge ( 46a)." Id. at 8.
The Examiner responds that Smith's skirt is continuous, because
hinge 46a is part of the skirt. Ans. 11. The Examiner notes that Smith's
Figure 5 shows the skirt having a downwardly extending portion that is
cylindrical. Id.
Appellant replies that even if hinge 46a is part of the skirt, the claims
"require that the skirt be 'cylindrical.' The hinge ( 46a) is clearly not
cylindrical." Reply Br. 2. Appellant contends that Smith's Figure 5 does
not depict a cross-section, but that Figure 7 is a cross-section of Figure 5 and
shows "'an inverted U-shaped cross-section', or toroidal." Id. Appellant
concludes that, even if Smith's Figure 5 shows a cylindrical outer wall,
because hinge 46a is not cylindrical, Smith does not disclose "a continuous
cylindrical skirt." Id.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive, because the claims do not
require "a continuous cylindrical skirt." Rather, the claims recite "a
continuous circumferential skirt" and the "skirt forming a cylindrical
structure." We decline to combine the requirement for the skirt to be
continuous with the requirement that the skirt be cylindrical in a manner that
requires the skirt to be continuously cylindrical, even if "continuously
cylindrical" could be properly construed in light of Appellant's
Specification. We must first construe the meaning of "continuous
circumferential skirt." Appellant's Specification provides little guidance
regarding the metes and bounds of a "continuous circumferential skirt,"
other than that the skirt "encircles the upper portion of the container 104."
Spec. ,r 28; see In re Yamamoto, 740 F.2d 1569, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
5
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
( during patent examination, the claims must be "given their broadest
reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification"). Nowhere in
Appellant's Specification is the term "continuous circumferential skirt"
limited to a continuous cylindrical skirt. We construe the term "continuous
circumferential skirt" to mean a skirt having an unbroken/uninterrupted
surface. See https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/continuous (last
visited March 18, 2019) ( defining continuous to mean "marked by
uninterrupted extension in space, time, or sequence.").
We discern no reasonable construction of the term "a continuous
circumferential skirt" that causes the term to exclude the skirt shown in
Smith's Figures 5 and 7. Smith's skirt certainly runs the circumference of
its container, and Appellant has not explained why Smith's tabs "interrupt"
its skirt in a manner that render the skirt non-continuous.
Further, regarding the meaning of "cylindrical," this term is used to
describe Appellant's skirt 132 in the Specification as follows: "The skirt
132 forms a cylindrical structure that encircles the upper portion of the
container 104 ... as best seen in FIGS. 4-5." Spec. ,r 28. Appellant's
Specification, thus, only appears to require that the skirt be cylindrical to
complement the shape of the bowl it covers. See Spec. ,r 4 ("The bowl
portion typically has a generally cylindrical shape."). Smith's skirt similarly
appears to be cylindrical to complement the shape of its container, as
evidenced by (1) its figures, which show (in fragment) that Smith's
container has a circular cross section, and reference to a diameter of the lid
(see Smith 4:22-26), and (2) the term "diameter" describing the dimension
of Smith's lid 10 (which complements the size of Smith's container 12),
which term is commonly used to measure a circle or cylinder.
6
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
Although Smith's skirt 16 has an inverted U-shaped cross section, it is
shown and disclosed to circumscribe Smith's container 12 by having a
generally cylindrical and complementary outer surface, and we therefore
agree with the Examiner that Smith discloses "a continuous circumferential
skirt," that forms a cylindrical structure as required by the claims.
Uniform Gap
Claim 1 recites, in relevant part, "said skirt [being] radially offset
from the body of the container when the closure is covering the container
opening to define a uniform radial gap between said cylindrical structure of
said skirt and the chime." Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App'x).
The Examiner finds that Figure 8 of Smith shows a uniform radial
gap, because Smith's "radial gap is uniform in the rotational direction of the
rim of the cup." Final Act. 13.
Appellant argues that Figure 8 of Smith does not show a uniform
radial gap because Smith discloses that the skirt has a "' generally inverted
U-shaped cross-section,"' which according to Appellant, would prevent
Smith's cover from latching if the gap were uniform. Appeal Br. 8.
Appellant asserts, moreover, that "the Examiner has selected an arbitrary
dimension to assess the 'uniformity' of the radial gap," whereas "the
'uniform radial gap' define[d] in Applicant's claims is vertically uniform as
well as uniform in 'the rotational direction."' Appeal Br. 9.
The Examiner responds that Smith's gap is uniform because it "would
not change around the circumference of the skirt," and Smith's gap is
radially uniform because "it has the same distance to the center of the
7
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
container at all points around the circumference of the chime and the skirt."
Ans. 12.
In reply, Appellant argues that even though the Examiner "relies on a
non-cylindrical structure in Smith to find a 'uniform radial gap,'" Smith
does not have a uniform radial gap between the chime and skirt, because
Figure 8 of Smith shows "that the radial gap is greatest at the top of the
toroidal portion and gradually decreases to no gap where the toroidal portion
contacts the chime (22) when the lid covers the container opening." Reply
Br. 3. This argument relies on a vertical uniformity of the gap.
Appellant's arguments are not persuasive because ( 1) the claims do
not recite vertical uniformity, and (2) Appellant does not provide evidence
that the claims otherwise require the gap to be vertically uniform. See
Appeal Br. 9. We construe the meaning of "uniform radial gap" based on a
broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the Specification.
Yamamoto, 740 F.2d at 1571. Appellant's Specification discloses that "the
skirt 132 is separated from the chime 112 by a gap 136, as shown in FIGS. 4
and 6. In other words, a radially inner side 138 of the skirt 132 is spaced
apart from the chime 112." Spec. ,r 28. The Specification also discloses that
"gap 136 is present around substantially the entire circumference except at
the indentations 141 as described herein." Id. Thus, "a radial uniform gap"
consistent with the Specification is a gap between the radially inner side of
the skirt and the chime that is present around substantially the entire
circumference of the chime/skirt. This construction is consistent with
Appellant's Figure 4, reproduced below.
8
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
Figure 4 is an enlarged cross-sectional view of a portion of
Appellant's container and closure assembly. Spec. ,r,r 18 and 19. As seen in
Figure 4, the gap 136 between Appellant's skirt 132 and chime 112 is
greatest at the top of its chime 112, and gradually decreases toward the
bottom of the chime 112. While Figure 4 shows Appellant's skirt 132 being
vertically straight in the cross-sectional view, this does not translate into a
requirement of vertical uniformity of the gap. Smith's Figure 8 is
reproduced below and provides a similar cross-sectional view of a portion of
Smith's container and closure assembly.
9
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
FIG. 8
44a--
r
'-19 56!l
Figure 8 of Smith is a partial cross-sectional view of the lid and tab.
Smith, 3 :64--65. As the Examiner correctly finds, Smith depicts a skirt that
is separated from the chime 22 by a gap between the radially inner side of
the skirt and the chime that is present around substantially the entire
circumference of the chime/skirt. See Final Act. 3. Given this construction
of "uniform radial gap," the Examiner's findings are not in error.
Fixed Relation
Claim 1 recites, in part, "each latch element including a lug projecting
radially inward from and in fixed relation to said cylindrical structure of said
skirt." Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App'x). The Examiner finds that Figure 8 of
Smith (shown above) discloses lug 44a in fixed relation to the skirt. Final
Act. 3.
10
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
Appellant argues that Smith's latching lip 44a is not "in fixed
relation" to the skirt, because Smith's "latching lip ( 44a) ... must be
movable relative to the rest of the ... skirt ( 16) since the latching lip moves
with the tab (40c, 40d.)" Appeal Br. 10. According to Appellant, "'[i]n
fixed relation' does not mean simply 'fastened securely' ... '[i]n fixed
relation' means that the positions of the items relative to each other do not
change." Appeal Br. 10.
The Examiner responds that when Smith's "lugs are engaged with the
underside of the chime, the position of the lugs do[es] not change with
respect to the skirt. At this time, they are in fixed relation to the skirt." Ans.
12.
Appellant replies that the broadest reasonable interpretation of "'in
fixed relation' would [be] that the lug is at the same location relative to the
skirt under all conditions of normal use of the closure." Reply Br. 3.
Appellant's argument is not persuasive. The term "fixed relation" is
not defined, or even recited, in Appellant' Specification. Rather, the
Specification discloses that "latch element 140 further includes a lug 148
that projects radially inward across the gap 136 toward the container body
104." Spec. ,r 29; Fig. 5. We do not discern, from this disclosure, that "in
fixed relation" can properly be construed such that it is limited to the lug
being in the same location relative to the skirt "under all conditions of
normal use," as Appellant asserts. The Examiner appears to construe "in
fixed relation such that it is met by the lug being in the same position
relative to the skirt when the lug is engaged. Lacking any support for
Appellant's proposed narrower construction, we adopt the Examiner's
11
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
broader construction as the more reasonable construction consistent with the
Specification.
Given this broader construction, we agree with the Examiner that
Smith's Figure 8, reproduced above, has a latch element 40c, 40d with a lug
44a that projects radially inward across the gap toward container body 19,
and is "in a fixed relation" to the skirt. We are not persuaded that the
Examiner's findings are in error.
We have considered each of Appellant's arguments. For the reasons
set forth above, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's findings or
conclusions are in error. We sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 1.
Claims 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13, 14, 17, and 18 fall with claim 1.
Claims 4 and 16
Claims 4 and 16 both require that the lug of each pair of latch
elements has a triangular cross-section in an axial direction perpendicular to
the radial dimension. The Examiner finds that Smith's lug 44a, as seen in
Smith's Figure 6, shows these limitations. Final Act. 4.
Appellant asserts that the Examiner erred in finding that Smith's lug
44a has a triangular cross-section. Appeal Br. 13.
The Examiner responds that Smith's Figure 6 "shows that the lugs are
angled towards one another and toward a common axis. Thus, they are
triangular." Ans. 14.
In reply, Appellant argues that the Examiner's apparent reliance on
the triangular shape between the two gripping portions is improper, because
"this is not a cross-section, as required by Applicant's claims 4 and 16."
Reply Br. 6.
12
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
Appellant's argument is persuasive. We reproduce Smith's Figure 6
below.
FIG 6
,,.--10
'
_/40c,40d
520
Smith's Figure 6 is a fragmentary elevation view of a lid, showing a
tab 40c in the retaining position. See Smith, 3: 59--61. Although hinges 46a
may be "angled towards one other" (Ans. 14), the Examiner relies on
Smith's element 44a to teach the claimed lug (see Final Act. 4), which is
depicted in phantom in Figure 6 as substantially U-shaped. Nonetheless, as
Appellant correctly notes, Figure 6 is not a cross-section and the Examiner
does not explain adequately how Smith's lug 44a has a triangular cross-
section in an axial direction perpendicular to the radial dimension, as
required by claims 4 and 16. We are unable to discern such a triangular
cross-section. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 4 and
16 as anticipated by Smith.
13
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
Claim 11
Claim 11 recites, inter alia, that the lug of each latch element "defines
a notch between said lug and said top panel of said closure, said notch
having an axial dimension sized relative to the axial thickness of the chime
for a snug fit." The Examiner finds that Figure 8 of Smith shows a lug 44a
defining a notch. Final Act. 4.
Appellant argues that Smith's Figure 8 "does not include a notch as
recited in Applicant's claim 11." Appeal Br. 13-14.
In response, the Examiner provides an annotated copy of Smith's
Figure 8, reproduced below, which explains where the Examiner finds a
notch "between the top of the lug and the outer surface of the chime." See
Ans. 14.
10
44a
Notch
Smith's Figure 8 is "a partial cross-sectional view of the lid and tab"
(Smith, 3:64---65), as annotated by the Examiner to indicate a notch.
Appellant replies that the Examiner's "notch" is formed by the outer
wall, not between the lug and the top panel. Reply Br. 6. Appellant argues
that the Examiner's notch appears to ignore claim 11 's requirement that
14
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
"said notch [has] an axial dimension sized relative to the axial thickness of
the chime for a snug fit," because it "does not appear to have any axial
dimension, or certainly not an axial dimension sized relative to the axial
thickness of the chime (22)." Id.
Appellant's arguments on this point are not persuasive. Appellant's
Specification discloses that the notch 150 (see Spec. Fig. 5) is a space
defined between a top of the lug 148 and a periphery 128 (see Spec. Fig. 4)
of the closure, which space "has an axial dimension that is slightly greater
than the axial thickness of the chime so that there is very little play of the
chime within the notch." Spec. ,r 31. Thus, consistent with the
Specification, we construe the notch to be a space defined by the lug and a
periphery of the closure, and which is axially larger than the chime so that
the chime can fit within the notch, but only to the extent that there is very
little play between the chime and notch. Smith discloses that "[t]he diameter
of lid 10 and dimensions of receiving channel 18 are selected to correspond
to the dimensions of a rim 22 ... to mate with rim 22 and seal the open end
of cup 12." Smith, 4:22-26. Smith also discloses that "[a]n annular
inwardly directed ridge or indentation (not shown) may also be provided in
the outer wall of skirt 16 to help form the seal between lid 10 and rim 22 by
expanding radially outwardly." Id. at 4 :26-31. In Smith's Figure 8, shown
above, a notch is defined between the lug (lip) 44a and top panel 10 to
receive the rim (chime) 22, and the notch has an axial dimension sized
relative to the axial thickness of rim (chime) 22 to mate with rim (chime) 22
"to engage [i.e., provide very little play with] the lower surface of rim 22."
Smith, 7:26-27.
15
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
Accordingly, we are not persuaded that the Examiner's findings are in
error. We sustain the rejection of claim 11 as anticipated by Smith.
Rejection II: Obvious Based on Smith
Claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 15
Appellant makes no argument that claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, and 15
would be patentable over Smith, other than to assert that claims 1 and 13 are
not anticipated by Smith. See Appeal Br. 14. For the reasons set forth
above regarding Rejection I, we sustain the rejection of claims 3, 7, 8, 10,
12, and 15 as unpatentable over Smith.
Claim 19
Independent claim 19 recites, in part, "pulling the closure upward at
the one latch element to disengage the other latch element from the chime."
The Examiner determines this limitation would have been obvious in
view of Smith, finding that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that, "to remove the closure from the container, it would be necessary to pull
one of the latch elements away from the container until the latch element
disengages the chime." Final Act. 10.
Appellant argues that the Examiner has not established prima facie
obviousness, because "the Examiner has not provided any proof that pulling
the lid [ of Smith] by the disengaged latch element would disengage the other
latch element." Appeal Br. 11. Appellant contends that both tabs of Smith
must be moved to the release position before removing the lid. Appeal Br.
12.
16
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
The Examiner responds that "one of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that the method [ of] Smith is simply one obvious variant for
removing the lid from the container and that the method of claim 19 would
be a reasonable alternative for removing the lid." Ans. 13. According to the
Examiner, although Smith's latch elements are still engaged to the chime
when flipped upwardly, they are "not locked to the chime and can be easily
pulled off of the container. Pulling at one of the latch elements will then
disengage it from the chime and further pulling it up will release the other
latch element which is only weakly engaged with the chime." Id.
Appellant replies that Smith's disclosure of "how the lid works is not
'simply one obvious variant.' It is a clear teaching to a person of ordinary
skill in the art how the lid is intended to be used." Reply Br. 4. Appellant
argues that, nonetheless, the Examiner's assertion that Smith's latches are
still engaged when they are flipped upward is inconsistent with the
disclosure of Smith, which provides that "when the tabs ( 40a, 40b) are in
their extended position they disengage the lip ( 44) of the cup 'allowing lid
10 to be removed from cup 12."' Reply Br. 5 (citing Smith, 6:66-7:2).
Appellant's arguments are persuasive. The Examiner's position in the
Final Action that upward pulling would disengage Smith's second latch
(without the second latch being flipped upward) is contrary to the disclosure
of Smith. Smith discloses that tabs (latches) are "adapted to be rotated into a
position adjacent the cup side wall to (1) positively retain the lid in sealing
engagement with the cup rim." Smith, 3: 1-3. Smith's lid is positively
retained on the cup because "[t]he diameter of lid 10 and dimensions of
receiving channel 18 are selected to correspond to the dimensions of a rim
22 of a particular drinking cup, such as cup 12, and lid 10 is thus able to
17
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
mate with rim 22 and seal the open end of cup 12." Smith, 4:22-26. For the
embodiment of Figures 1--4, Smith discloses that "[t]abs 40a and 40b are
maintained ... in the retaining position by a biasing feature," and for the
embodiment of Figures 5-8 Smith discloses that "tabs 40c, 40d are biased
inwardly toward sidewall 19 while latching lip 44a is forced to engage the
lower surface ofrim 22." Smith, 6:12-14 and 7:25-27. To the extent that
Smith's positive engagement would not prevent the latch from being
disengaged, we agree with Appellant that it would not have been obvious to
remove Smith's lid in this manner, as "it is unlikely that the hypothetical
user would want to bum his or her hand with hot coffee when the cup is
jostled by this forceful removal of the lid." Appeal Br. 11.
The Examiner's position in the Answer is also untenable, because we
agree with Appellant that when Smith's latches are flipped upwardly, the
latches are disengaged (see Reply Br. 5), and Smith would not require
"pulling the closure upward at the one latch element to disengage the other
latch element from the chime," as claimed. Smith, similar to Appellant,
distinguishes between engagement and contact and discloses that moving
tabs 40, 40b "back into the extended position disengag[ es] lip 44 from
around rim 22 allowing lid 10 to be removed from cup 12." Smith, 6:67-
7:2. Given that Smith's latch is already disengaged when the latch has been
flipped upwardly, the Examiner's position that it would have been obvious
to pull the closure upward at the one latch element to disengage the other
latch element from the chime, is not supported by a preponderance of the
evidence.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner's rejection of claim 19
as unpatentable over Smith.
18
Appeal2018-006965
Application 13/686,593
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 9, 11, 13,
14, 17, and 18, and REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claims 4 and 16
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated by Smith.
We AFFIRM the Examiner's rejection of claims 3, 7, 8, 10, 12, and
15, and REVERSE the Examiner's rejection of claim 19 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Smith.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(l )(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART
19