TRIG1 LIMITED

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 20, 2021

2021001228 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
15/520,457 04/20/2017 Raymond John Bacon STRA012-US_MJC 9278
24222 7590 08/20/2021
Maine Cernota & Rardin
547 Amherst Street
3rd Floor
Nashua, NH 03063
EXAMINER
COX, JUSTIA Q
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3736
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/20/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
eofficeaction@appcoll.com
mreif@mcr-ip.com
patents@mcr-ip.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte RAYMOND JOHN BACON,
STUART WILLIAM PEARCE, and
ALEX WILLIAM NOBEL

Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JENNIFER D. BAHR, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
MICHAEL J. FITZPATRICK, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOELTER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–6, 8–17, and 19–21, which constitute
all the claims pending in this application. See Appeal Br. 1 (Title page). We
have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s rejections of these claims.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in
37 C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as “TRIG1
Limited.” Appeal Br. 3.
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The disclosed subject matter “relates to a dispensing container[,]
particularly, but not exclusively, a dispensing container for storing and
dispensing medicine.” Spec. 1:5–6. Apparatus claim 1 is the sole
independent claim. Claim 1 is illustrative of the claims on appeal and is
reproduced below.
1. A dispensing container comprising a pressure vessel, the
vessel having:
a first element positioned in or on the vessel that is
configured to cause the center of gravity of liquid contents of
the vessel to be positioned differently when oriented in a lain-
onside attitude, compared to an upright position, in the absence
of the first element;
a second element positioned in or on the vessel which,
when the container is in the lain-on-side attitude, is configured
to lift at least a portion of the container away from a surface,
wherein, when the container is in the lain-on-side attitude
and contains a first volume of content, the center of gravity of
the content biases the container to a first orientation, and
wherein, when the container is in the lain-on-side attitude
and has a second volume of content, the center of gravity of the
container biases the container to a second orientation, different
to the first.
EVIDENCE
Name Reference Date
Chesney US 2,529,138 Nov. 7, 1950
Bobula et al.
(“Bobula”)
US 3,439,949 Apr. 22, 1969
Linnemann et al.
(“Linnemann”)
US 4,917,289 Apr. 17, 1990
Schneider US 6,520,365 B2 Feb. 18, 2003
Elias US 7,617,622 B2 Nov. 17, 2009
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

3
Bacon WO 2011/095761 A1 Aug. 11, 2011
REJECTIONS
Claims 19–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject
matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–14, and 19–21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as unpatentable over Bacon and Chesney.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bacon,
Chesney, and Elias.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bacon,
Chesney, and Schneider.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over Bacon,
Chesney, and Linnemann.
Claims 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Bacon, Chesney, and Bobula.
ANALYSIS
The rejection of claims 19–21 as being indefinite
Parent claim 1 recites a first element “in or on” the vessel that is
configured to alter, when the vessel is lain on its side, the center of gravity of
the liquid contents of the vessel. Rejected claim 19, and its dependent
claims 20 and 21, recites “said first element comprises a substantially
distinct cross-section from that of other portions of the vessel.” The
Examiner takes issue with the term “substantially” contending that this term
“is an approximation that fails to clearly establish the degree to which the
cross-section must be different.” Non-Final Act. 3.
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

4
To provide context, Appellant’s Specification describes a groove 20
forming a part of the vessel wall. See, e.g., Spec. Figs. 1–6. Appellant’s
Specification states, “groove 20 may extend only partially along the length
of the vessel 12” or “the groove 20 may extend along the entire longitudinal
dimension of the vessel from a base 22 to the neck 16.” Spec. 3:34–37; see
also Spec. 3:40 (discussing when the groove “extend[s] from end to end of
the vessel”).
Appellant provides references where, in Appellant’s words, our
reviewing court “has expressly approved ‘substantially.’” Appeal Br. 14
(citations omitted). Appellant further contends that “one of ordinary skill in
the art would know what was meant by [that] term.” Appeal Br. 15. The
Examiner responds that the use of this term in claim 19 “renders it unclear.”
Ans. 15.
Appellant has the better position. As mentioned above, groove 20
may extend partially or wholly along the length of the vessel. Claim 19
addresses the cross-section of the vessel. In the situation where the groove
extends the entire length of the vessel, a cross-section of the vessel would
show the groove. But, in the situation where the groove only extends
partially along the length of the vessel, then the vessel’s cross-section at a
location where there is no groove would differ from the vessel’s cross-
section where there is a groove. Claim 19 addresses this distinction reciting
a vessel where “a substantially distinct cross-section” occurs “from that of
other portions of the vessel.” In other words, claim 19 addresses the
situation where the groove does not extend the length of the vessel thereby
allowing the vessel to have distinct cross-sections. Accordingly, we are not
persuaded that this would have been “unclear” to one skilled in the art, or
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

5
that one skilled in the art would not have been able to make the requisite
distinction between different cross-sections. We reverse the Examiner’s
rejection of claims 19–21 as being indefinite.
The rejection of claims 1–3, 5, 6, 10–14, and 19–21
as unpatentable over Bacon and Chesney
Appellant presents separate arguments for claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, and
20. See Appeal Br. 16–30. Appellant states that the remaining rejected
claims “should be allowable, at least by virtue of their dependency from
claim 1.” Appeal Br. 30. We separately address claims 1, 2, 5, 6, 14, and
20, with the remaining claims standing or falling with claim 1. See 37
C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(iv) (2019).
Claim 1
Appellant states, “[n]otably, it should be understood that the present
disclosure defines improvements to the arrangement disclosed in Bacon.”
Appeal Br. 16. “More specifically, Bacon does not . . . disclose a
circumferential formation (28) which projects and thus lifts at least a portion
of the container away from a surface.” Appeal Br. 16–17. Appellant is
addressing the claim 1 limitation of “a second element positioned in or on
the vessel which, when the container is in the lain-on-side attitude, is
configured to lift at least a portion of the container away from a surface.”
The Examiner, acknowledging that Bacon does not disclose this
recited “second element” that lifts the container away from a surface, relies
on Chesney for such teachings. See Non-Final Act. 6–7; see also Ans. 16.
More specifically, the Examiner identifies “circumferential formations (28)”
as teaching this limitation. Non-Final Act. 7 (referencing Chesney 4:19–29).
The Examiner states, “[t]he motivation for doing so would be to support the
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

6
cylindrical body portion of the container away from contact with the floor
and/or to strengthen the body of the container.” Non-Final Act. 7.
Indeed, the referenced portion of Chesney teaches that “[t]o provide a
means for rolling the container . . . the container may be provided . . . with
integral circular outwardly extending projections or beads 28.” Chesney
4:19–23. Chesney explains that these beads 28 “may extend outwardly
sufficiently far to support the cylindrical body portion of the container away
from contact with the floor.” Chesney 4:23–26. Chesney also teaches that
“[t]hese outwardly extending projections also serve to further strengthen the
body of the container.” Chesney 4:27–29. In view of the above, and
because Appellant does not limit the size of the container (“[d]ispensing
containers come in many shapes and sizes” (Spec. 1:10)), we conclude the
Examiner has presented a case of obviousness.
Appellant contends that “Chesney cannot properly be construed as
analogous art, not being from the same field of endeavor OR reasonably
pertinent to the problem solved by the present invention.” Appeal Br. 20.
Appellant states that “Chesney fails to address the same problems that
Appellant has addressed” with “the Examiner reciting different problems.”2
Appeal Br. 20.
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive. Although it may be true
that Chesney pertains to larger containers than what Appellant might have
contemplated, claim 1 is silent as to any particular size of the claimed
dispensing container and, as mentioned above, Appellant’s Specification

2 Appellant states that “strength of the vessel is not a significant issue” and
that moving the vessel “from place to place by rolling, as taught by Chesney,
[is] impractical.” Appeal Br. 20; see also id. at 24.
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

7
states that “[d]ispensing containers come in many shapes and sizes.” Spec.
1:10; see also Ans. 18. Hence, size alone is not sufficient to render Chesney
non-analogous art or, as expressed by the Examiner, “a mere change in size
or scale, would not render the invention patentably distinct.” Ans. 18.
Regarding the problems addressed by Appellant, it is clear from the
language of claim 1 that Appellant was concerned with the problem of
rolling the container (see last two “wherein” clauses regarding a lain-on-side
container being biased into different orientations).3 Chesney also addresses
the matter of “rolling the container,” and makes it easier to do so by
incorporating beads 28 which support “the container away from contact with
the floor.” Chesney 4:19–27; see also Ans. 16. Appellant does not explain
how this problem resolved by Chesney differs from the problem addressed
by Appellant.
Appellant also addresses the problem of “strength” stating that, with
respect to Bacon’s vessel (and as expressed above), “the strength of the
vessel is not a significant issue.” Appeal Br. 20; see also id. at 24.
Appellant states, “[b]eing pressure vessels, reinforcement of the
circumference, in any case, would provide little reinforcing benefit.” Appeal
Br. 25. Indeed, Appellant (and Bacon) addresses “pressurized liquid
dispensing containers” (Spec. 1:11) however it is not made clear by
Appellant why strength is not a concern to be addressed when designing

3 Appellant also identifies a specific problem with Bacon stating, “Bacon’s
pressure vessel, however, had a tendency towards providing false readings”
because “the groove would cause the pressure vessel to hang up, preventing
the container from settling naturally.” Appeal Br. 12.
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

8
pressurized containers.4 On this point, and as mentioned above, Chesney
teaches that bands 28 “further strengthen the body of the container.”
Chesney 4:27–29. In view of the above, we are not persuaded by Appellant
that the problems addressed by Appellant differ from those addressed by
Chesney or differ from those which were known in the art. In short,
Chesney is reasonably pertinent to the problems with which the inventor was
also concerned. Thus, we do not agree with Appellant that Chesney is non-
analogous art. See also Ans. 17–21.
Appellant also alleges that “the Examiner’s stated motivation for the
combination” was provided “from Appellant’s own disclosure” and that the
Examiner’s rationale “amounts to nothing more than an impermissible
hindsight bias.” Appeal Br. 21. We disagree with Appellant’s assessment in
view of Chesney’s explicit discussion regarding beads 28 that provide “a
means for rolling the container” as well as serving “to further strengthen the
body of the container.” Chesney 4:19–29. In other words, Appellant does
not explain how the Examiner’s motivation was gleaned only from
Appellant’s disclosure. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395 (CCPA
1971); see also Ans. 17. Expressed another way, Appellant does not explain
how the Examiner failed to provide “some articulated reasoning with some

4 For example, Appellant acknowledges that Bacon is concerned with “an
inflectionless cylindrical envelope” for its pressurized container. Appeal Br.
23 (referencing Bacon 2:23–24); see also Ans. 20. We understand that the
hoop strength of a pressure vessel is a well-known concern; for example,
Linnemann is an example that it was known to provide bands which
“encircle the side wall [] to give the container [] additional strength to
prevent outward bulging of the side wall [] under the weight of the liquid or
fluid contained therein.” Linnemann 2:49–53; see also Ans. 25.
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

9
rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” KSR
Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007).
Appellant further states, “the Examiner’s stated motivation for the
combination assumes some degree of creativity on the part of the
hypothetical person of ordinary skill in the art.” Appeal Br. 22. However,
as per Appellant, “the person of ordinary skill is said to lack an inventive
bone in his body” and thus the standard is not directed “to one of
extraordinary skill.” Appeal Br. 22 (citations omitted). We note that the
cases relied upon by Appellant all pre-date KSR, which clearly states that
“[a] person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.” KSR, 550 U.S. at 421; see also Ans. 19. Appellant does not
explain how the skill set required to achieve the Examiner’s combination is
beyond that of a person of ordinary creativity, who is neither an automaton
nor a person of extraordinary skill.
We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1, and also of dependent
claims 3, 11–13, and 19.
Claim 2
Claim 2 depends from claim 1 and further recites that “the second
element positioned in or on the vessel” that “lifts the container away from a
surface comprises at least one tire, or band, arranged circumferentially
around the vessel.” The Examiner finds that this limitation is “shown in
Figure 1 and described in column 4, lines 19–29 of Chesney.” Non-Final
Act. 7; see also id. at 8 (providing an annotation of Figure 1 of Chesney).
Appellant contends that “the claimed tire or band is clearly described as
being a feature that can be added by an end user to the dispensing container,
after the fact of its creation.” Appeal Br. 26 (referencing Spec. 4:1–6 and
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

10
4:9–15). This, as per Appellant, differs from Chesney’s teachings “which
only describes the formations as ‘integral’ to the vessel.” Appeal Br. 26
(referencing Chesney 4:19–29).
Claim 2 does not recite whether the tire or band is integral. Thus,
Appellant seems to be arguing a non-recited feature.5 Further, Appellant’s
Specification states, “[t]he additional formation or discreet element in or on
the vessel for lifting the container away from a surface may take the form of
at least one circumferential band, or tyre.” Spec. 2:10–11. Thus, it would
appear that the band or tire may be either an “additional formation” or a
“discreet element.” Appellant’s Specification further states, “[u]se of an
additional discreet element on the vessel, such as a circumferential band or
tyre would enable such a band, or tyre, to be retrospectively installed to
containers after manufacture.”6 Spec. 2:15–17. This is understood to mean
that when the “band, or tyre” is a discreet element, it can be added to the
vessel after-the-fact. However, as mentioned above, the matter of being
“discreet” or not is not a recited limitation. See Ans. 22. Thus, Appellant’s
contention that Appellant’s Specification distinguishes the recited tire or
band from Chesney’s “integral” band does not persuade us the Examiner
erred in finding that Chesney’s band (in conjunction with Bacon) teaches the
limitations set forth in claim 2. See Ans. 22 (“Claims are examined under
the broadest reasonable interpretation, and examined in light of the

5 The Examiner states, “the prior art applied must meet the limitations as set
forth by the claimed language” and “that the reference supports the
limitation as claimed.” Ans. 22.
6 Appellant’s Specification also states, “[t]he additional formation or discreet
element in or on the vessel may alternatively take the form of an integral
circumferential protuberance from the vessel.” Spec. 2:22–24.
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

11
specification, without reading the specification into the claims.”). We, thus,
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2.
Claim 5
Claim 5 depends from claim 2 and further recites, “wherein said
dispensing container comprises two tires, or bands.” Appellant presents an
argument similar to that presented above regarding claim 2, i.e., that the
recited bands are different because they “are recessed, compared to
formation (28).” Appeal Br. 26. Claim 5 recites only “two” tires or bands,
and Appellant does not explain how Chesney’s Figure 1 fails to disclose two
bands 28. See Ans. 22 (“Chesney teaches several such bands or tires.”).
Appellant also contends that “the combination of Bacon-Chesney [is]
inoperable for its intended purpose.” Appeal Br. 26–27. However, it is not
explained how the multiple bands disclosed in Figure 1 of Chesney would
render the combination inoperable.
Appellant also challenges the Examiner’s additional motivation
directed to “nesting.” Appeal Br. 27; see also Non-Final Act. 9 (“The
motivation for doing so would be to enable nesting of the containers.”).
Chesney teaches that bands 28 are part of formations that “can be very
readily aligned and this aligning and nesting of the sections” aids in
shipment because the containers, when empty, can be disassembled thereby
taking up less space during shipment. Chesney 4:36–48; see also Chesney
Figs. 5, 6. Appellant does not explain why the Examiner’s additional
reliance on “nesting” for combining Bacon and Chesney is improper. We
sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 5, and claim 10 which depends
therefrom.
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

12
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and further recites that one tire or band
“is positioned adjacent a base wall of the vessel” and another “is positioned
adjacent a neck portion of the vessel.” Appellant repeats the contention that
Chesney’s “bands are different” and that Appellant’s bands “are recessed,
compared to formation (28).” Appeal Br. 27, 28. Appellant also addresses
the “nesting” rationale discussed above. See Appeal Br. 28.
Appellant’s contentions are not persuasive for the reasons previously
expressed. See Ans. 23–24. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6.
Claim 14
Claim 14 depends from claim 11 (which ultimately depends from
claim 1). Claim 11 recites “two integral circumferential protuberances,” and
claim 14 additionally recites that these integral protuberances are “adjacent a
base” and “adjacent a neck.” The Examiner provides an annotation of
Figure 1 of Chesney where these features can be found. See Non-Final Act.
11. Appellant states, “[t]he Examiner appears to have defined ‘neck’ as
‘top’” and that “[n]eck is more appropriately defined, however, as ‘a narrow
part of something.’” Appeal Br. 29. As such, according to Appellant,
Chesney fails to show a neck.” Appeal Br. 29.
Accepting Appellant’s definition of “neck,” the Examiner states
“Figure 1 of Chesney shows a neck, or narrowing as defined by the
Appellant, in the region between feature 30 and the band 17.” Ans. 24. The
Examiner states that “protuberance (17) is next to the neck.” Ans. 24. We
agree with the Examiner’s assessment because Chesney illustrates an upper
narrowing, as indicated, with a band nearby. In other words, Appellant does
not explain how Chesney fails to disclose the requisite protuberance where
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

13
recited. The same goes for the recitation regarding “adjacent a base.” See
Ans. 24. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 14.
Claim 20
Claim 20 depends from claim 19, which depends from claim 1. Claim
20 recites the additional limitation of the band being “positioned outside of
the portion of said vessel comprising said first element.” In other words, the
band is outside the vessel’s groove. The Examiner states that this
arrangement is disclosed in the Bacon-Chesney combination by referencing
the bottom location of feature 28. See Non-Final Act. 13; see also Ans. 24–
25. Appellant disagrees stating that Chesney has “no elements
corresponding to the claimed first or second elements.” Appeal Br. 30.
Appellant’s contention is not persuasive because the Examiner relied
on Chesney for disclosing the second element, but relied on Bacon for
teaching the first element, not Chesney. See Ans. 24 (“Bacon ‘5761
discloses the vessel having the first element”). In other words, Chesney was
not relied upon for teaching both the first and second elements as asserted.
Appellant appears to be arguing the art individually. We sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 20, and its dependent claim 21.
The rejections of (a) claim 4 as unpatentable over Bacon, Chesney, and
Elias; and, (b) claim 8 as unpatentable over Bacon, Chesney, and Schneider
Appellant does not separately argue either rejection, stating instead
that claims 4 and 8 “should be allowable, at least by virtue of [their]
dependency from claim 1.” Appeal Br. 31; see also Ans. 25. Because we
are not apprised of Examiner error with respect to these rejections, they are
sustained in view of the art cited.
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

14
The rejection of claim 9
as unpatentable over Bacon, Chesney, and Linnemann
Claim 9 depends from claim 5, and further recites that “each tire, or
band, is manufactured from rubber, silicone, plastic, or metal.” Appellant
initially contends (as above) that claim 9 “should be allowable” based on its
dependency from claim 1. Appeal Br. 31. Appellant also contends that
“Linnemann is not analogous art.” Appeal Br. 32. Linnemann was relied
upon by the Examiner for teaching a container’s tire or band that is made
from the recited material. See Non-Final Act. 14 (referencing Linnemann
2:49–53). Indeed, Linnemann teaches “[m]etal or plastic bands” may
encircle the container “to give the container 10 additional strength to prevent
outward bulging.” Linnemann 2:49–53; see also Ans. 25. Again, it can be
seen that Linnemann is concerned with strengthening the vessel to prevent
deformation from occurring due to internal pressure. See Ans. 26.
Appellant does not explain how this differs from the “inflectionless”
problem addressed by Appellant above. Accordingly, and based on the
record presented, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 9.
The rejection of claims 15–17
as unpatentable over Bacon, Chesney, and Bobula
Appellant presents separate arguments for claims 15 and 16. See
Appeal Br. 33–37. We address these two claims separately, with claim 17,
which depends from claim 15, standing or falling with claim 15.
Claim 15
Claim 15 depends from claim 1 and further requires the second
element (band) to comprise “an outwardly facing projection.” The Examiner
relies on Bobula for such teachings, and particularly identifies Bobula’s
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

15
“outwardly facing projection (24) otherwise referred to as a clamping ring”
for such teachings. Non-Final Act. 15; see also Ans. 26. “Appellant
disagrees that element 24 is in fact an outward facing projection.” Appeal
Br. 33. However, as shown in Bobula’s Figures, ring 24 projects outward
away from the vessel.
Appellant also disagrees that Bobula’s item 24 “is disposed on an
element analogous to the claimed second element” (i.e., band). On this
point, the Examiner finds that Bobula’s item 24 “is affixed to feature 22
which also meets the description of a” band, i.e., “an element capable of
lifting at least a portion of the container away from a surface.” Ans. 26.
Appellant does not explain how feature 22 would fail to lift a portion of the
container away from a surface when the vessel is laid on its side.
Appellant also addresses the Examiner’s reasoning for combining
Bobula with that of Bacon and Chesney, i.e., “[t]he motivation for doing so
would be to lock the container and the cover together.” Non-Final Act. 15
(referencing Bobula’s Abstract). Appellant states, “the inclusion of such a
cover in the invention of Bacon would tend to make Bacon’s invention
inoperable for its intended purpose.” Appellant does not elaborate as to how
such a combination would render Bacon inoperable, only that it would, and
thus asserts that a modification that renders the prior art inoperable is faulty.
See Appeal Br. 34. We have been instructed that “attorney argument [is] not
the kind of factual evidence that is required to rebut a prima facie case of
obviousness.” In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1470 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (citation
omitted). In the matter before us, we have no explanation as to how or why
the Examiner’s combination would render Bacon unsatisfactory for its
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

16
intended purpose. Accordingly, Appellant’s contention is not persuasive of
Examiner error.
Appellant also contends that the modified device “would tend to
prevent it from having the ability to free-roll without getting hung up on
non-cylindrical portions of the vessel.” Appeal Br. 34. Appellant’s
argument is not persuasive because Appellant own projection 36 (see Spec.
Fig. 4b) likewise projects outwardly and would likewise prevent the vessel
from free-rolling.
Lastly, Appellant contends that Bobula is not “analogous art . . .
because Bobula pertains to a sealing system for a drum cover . . . and the
vessel claimed by Appellant has no need for a cover nor would one serve
any legitimate purpose in connection therewith.” Appeal Br. 34.
Appellant’s assertion is not consistent with Appellant’s Specification, which
describes an upper “valve 14 crimped on at a neck 16 in the vessel.” Spec.
3:19. Appellant does not explain how Appellant’s vessel can have a crimped
top cover, but a crimped top cover suggested by the Examiner’s combination
is in error. We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that Bobula is
non-analogous art. We sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 15, and its
dependent claim 17.
Claim 16
Claim 16 depends from claim 15 and further recites “wherein the
outwardly facing projection comprises a pin.” The Examiner relies on
Bobula for teaching “a container with a locking mechanism or latch with a
pin (27) as shown in Figures 1 and 4.” Non-Final Act. 15. Figure 4 of
Bobula illustrates pin 27 that extends further outward from clamping ring 24
discussed above. Again, Appellant contends that such a combination
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

17
“would render Bacon inoperable for its intended purpose, since the pivotal
nature of the pin would affect the settling of the vessel, throwing off the
measurement of internal fluid level.” Appeal Br. 36. Appellant does not
explain how the rotation of pin 27 is such that it would cause the contents of
the vessel to settle differentially, i.e., the center of gravity of pin 27 remains
a set distance from the center of the vessel regardless of its position. See
Bobula Figs. 1–3. We are not persuaded of Examiner error for the same
reasons set forth above.
Appellant also addresses the Examiner’s motivation contending that it
“is inadequate at least because Appellant’s claim concerns a pressure vessel,
the contents of which are not susceptible to being lost due to accidental
opening.” Appeal Br. 36–37. To be clear, the Examiner’s stated motivation
regarding claim 16 (in addition to those previously addressed for its parent
claims) is “to provide an additional safeguard for alleviating the danger of
accidental opening of the container assembly and loss of contents.” Non-
Final Act. 15–16 (referencing Bobula 2:13–15). Indeed, this portion of
Bobula addresses “an improved clamping ring provided with a latch
mechanism” that provides such additional safeguard. Bobula 2:11–13.
Appellant’s contention that the contents of a pressure vessel “are not
susceptible to being lost due to accidental opening” is not persuasive, and
the Examiner has provided articulated reasoning with rational underpinning
in support of the rejection of claim 16.
Appellant also contends that “Bobula and Chesney continue to be
non-analogous art, and therefore inappropriate to combine with Bacon.”
Appeal Br. 37. Appellant contends this is the case “for at least the foregoing
reasons provided herein.” Appeal Br. 37. Appellant’s contention on this
Appeal 2021-001228
Application 15/520,457

18
point is not persuasive because Bobula addresses a need to keep contents
contained within a vessel, and Appellant does not explain how this is not
also a concern in Bacon.
Accordingly, and based on the record presented, we sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 16.
CONCLUSION
In summary:

Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
19–21 112(b) Indefiniteness 19–21
1–3, 5, 6,
10–14, 19–
21
103 Bacon, Chesney 1–3, 5, 6,
10–14, 19–
21

4 103 Bacon, Chesney,
Elias
4
8 103 Bacon, Chesney,
Schneider
8
9 103 Bacon, Chesney,
Linnemann
9
15–17 103 Bacon, Chesney,
Bobula
15–17
Overall
outcome
1–6, 8–17,
19–21

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED