Ex Parte Roeterdink et al

Patent Trial and Appeal BoardAug 28, 2013

10499924 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 28, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________________ Ex parte JOHAN WILLEM ROETERDINK and GERARDUS JOHANNES JOSEPHUS TIELBEKE ____________________ Appeal 2011-010690 Application 10/499,924 Technology Center 3700 ____________________ Before ANNETTE R. REIMERS, RICHARD E. RICE, and MITCHELL G. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judges. WEATHERLY, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the Examiner rejecting claims 1, 5, and 6. Claims 2-4 and 7-9 are canceled. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We affirm. Appeal 2011-010690 Application 10/499,924 2 The claims are directed to a sealing lid for a can. Claim 1, reproduced below, is representative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A sealing lid for a can comprising: a base part substantially shaped like a ring defining an opening; a sealing foil arranged on the base part and covering the opening; a lip coupled to the sealing foil to facilitate removing the foil from the base part; and a releasable retaining means for releasably retaining a free end of the lip to the sealing foil, the releasable retaining means comprising a first retaining part disposed on the underside of the lip and a second retaining part integrally disposed on the upper surface of the sealing foil, wherein the first retaining part and the second retaining part have a shape defined connection comprising projections which releasably engage with each other, and wherein the projections have a substantially T-shaped cross-section. REJECTIONS Appellants seek our review of the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ramsey (US 5,725,120, iss. Mar. 10, 1998) and Ronchail (US 5,823,404, iss. Oct. 20, 1998). OPINION The Examiner finds that Ramsey describes all limitations except for the “projections on each of first and second retaining parts, which further have substantially T-shaped cross-sections.” Ans. 3. The Examiner notes that Ramsey suggests releasably attaching a lip coupled to a sealing foil to that foil with a “frangible weld.” Id. (citing Ramsey, 4:35-37). The Appeal 2011-010690 Application 10/499,924 3 Examiner relies upon Ronchail as describing first and second retaining parts having nested T-shaped cross-sections. Ans. 3. The Examiner reasons that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to “substitute a frangible weld, for a mechanical interlock, because both are retaining means for securing two elements together.” Id. The Examiner further reasons a skilled artisan would have been motivated to modify Ramsey with Ronchail to “provide a positive interlocking connection between the two elements.” Id. The Examiner also clarifies that the limitation “means for releasably retaining a free end of the lip to the sealing foil” is not a means-plus-function limitation due to the recited structure, including “a first retaining part” and “a second retaining part,” for achieving the specified function. Id. at 4 (referencing MPEP § 2181(1)). Appellants proffer three arguments for reversing the Examiner’s rejection of claim 1. We address each in turn. First, Appellants argue that Ronchail fails to describe the type of connection recited in the claim because that connection is formed using three separate elements rather than two as recited in the claim. Br. 12. Appellants contend that the third element in Ronchail’s connection hardware, the lever 8, is an essential element of Ronchail’s connection. Id. We reject this argument because the Examiner correctly notes that the open-ended nature of claim 1 does not preclude the presence of structures beyond those recited in claim 1. Ans. 5. Second, Appellants argue that neither Ramsey nor Ronchail describes the “releasable” nature of the connection between the claimed first and second projections. Br. 13-15. Appellants contend that because Ronchail’s nested projections 11, 28 are surrounded at their base by Ronchail’s lever 8, Appeal 2011-010690 Application 10/499,924 4 the connection between projections 11, 28 is permanent and therefore not “releasable.” Id. (citing Ronchail, 2:57-65, 4:6-10, 4:32-36, 4:45-46, and 5:25-26). We reject this argument because we agree with the Examiner that even though Ronchail’s connection is strong enough to permit Ronchail’s spout to be pulled through Ronchail’s top 5, the connection may still be released by applying sufficient force to deform the T-shaped projections 11, 28. Ans. 6. Claim 1 does not recite limitations that preclude reading the claimed projections on Ronchail’s projections 11, 28. Therefore, we reject Appellants’ second argument. Third, Appellants argue that Ronchail’s nested projections 11, 28 are not the claimed first and second retaining parts because the claimed retaining parts are both formed in foil that is “relatively vulnerable and easy to destroy.” Br. 15. Appellants contend that Ronchail, by contrast, describes “a rigid element which is intentionally not to be disrupted” and “mushroom type projections which look like [a] rivet . . . which is not releasable.” Id. at 15-16. We reject this final argument because it is not commensurate with the scope of claim 1, which does not limit the projection on the first retaining part as being formed in foil. Instead, the first retaining part is formed “on the underside of the lip,” which is “coupled to the sealing foil.” Thus, the lip and its T-shaped projection need not be formed of foil. Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that a skilled artisan would have found it obvious to form the claimed mechanical connection in Ramsey’s foil lid for the reasons expressed by the Examiner. Ans. 7. For these reasons, we affirm the Examiner’s rejection of independent claim 1 and the dependent claims 5 and 6. Appeal 2011-010690 Application 10/499,924 5 DECISION For the reasons stated above, we affirm the rejection of claims 1, 5, and 6. No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv). AFFIRMED mls