Ex Parte Steg

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 13, 2013

11405795 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 13, 2013)

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.
11/405,795 04/18/2006 Henning Steg NI 165 4934
27956 7590 08/14/2013
KLAUS J. BACH
4407 TWIN OAKS DRIVE
MURRYSVILLE, PA 15668
EXAMINER
VOLZ, ELIZABETH J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3781
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/14/2013 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
____________________

Ex parte HENNING STEG
____________________

Appeal 2011-009461
Application 11/405,795
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before: WILLIAM V. SAINDON, NEIL T. POWELL, and
JEREMY M. PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judges.

PLENZLER, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2011-009461
Application 11/405,795

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the
Examiner’s decision rejecting claims 1-5, 7-9, and 13. Claim 6 is cancelled.
After withdrawal of the rejection of claims 1-5 and 7-13 under U.S.C. § 112,
first paragraph, there do not appear to be any outstanding rejections directed
to claims 10-12. Ans. 3. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim on appeal and is reproduced
below:
1. A container (10) for solid, paste-like and flowable
products, comprising: a lower container part (11) with an
opening (14) for containing the product and a container top part
(12) in the form of a container lid, said lower container part
(11) having a rim with a top wall (15) and a downwardly
extending rim web (20) extending all around the container
opening (14), the top wall (15) having an annular upwardly
extending projection (21) and the container top part (12)
comprising a collar element (16) also extending all around the
container opening (14) and the rim (15, 20) of the container
bottom part (11), the collar element (16) including a rim area
(23) extending inwardly over the container rim top wall (15) up
to the upwardly extending annular projection (21) and an
essentially flat areal cover element (17) provided on the collar
element (16) and releasably connected to the annular upwardly
extending projection (21) of the container rim top wall (15)
which is arranged adjacent the inwardly extending rim area (23)
and on which the areal cover element (17) is sealingly disposed
when the container is closed.

Appeal 2011-009461
Application 11/405,795

3
REJECTIONS
1. Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being anticipated
by VanCucha (US 4,946,064; iss. Aug. 7, 1990); and
2. Claims 1-5, 7-9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Clarke (WO 03/047999 A1; pub. Jun. 12, 2003) and
VanCucha.

OPINION
Anticipation – VanCucha
Appellant argues claims 1-5 as a group. See App. Br 7. We select
claim 1 as representative. Claims 2-5 stand or fall with claim 1.
Appellant argues that VanCucha fails to disclose a cover web located
on a collar element and directly in contact with and connected to an annular
projection of the container rim top wall 15 so that the cover web is directly
connected to the container bottom part when the container top part is
disposed on the container bottom part as required by claim 1. App. Br. 6.
The Examiner explains that the claim does not require direct contact. Ans.
6.
In response, Appellant explains that direct contact is shown in the
figures and is clearly a result of the design of the present invention.
Appellant argues that “[i]t does not need to be specifically claimed to be
specifically claimed that it is in ‘direct’ contact” because the claim recites
that the areal cover element is sealingly disposed on the upwardly extending
projection of the container rim and consequently in direct contact with the
upwardly extending projection. Reply Br. 3. Initially, we note that
arguments must be commensurate in scope with the actual claim language.
Appeal 2011-009461
Application 11/405,795

4
In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982). We agree with the Examiner
that there is nothing in claim 1 requiring the direct contact alleged by
Appellant. Claim 1 simply requires that the cover element is sealingly
disposed on the container rim top wall. For example, claim 1 does not
preclude an intervening layer from being present between the areal cover
element and the container rim top wall.
For these reasons, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we
sustain the rejection of claims 1-5.

Obviousness – Clarke and VanCucha
Appellant argues claims 1-5, 7-9, and 13 as a group. See App. Br 7.
We select claim 1 as representative. Claims 2-5, 7-9, and 13 stand or fall
with claim 1.
Appellant argues that Clarke also fails to disclose the claimed
arrangement because there is no direct contact between the foil seal (cover
member) 14 and the container rim 16 in Clarke. App. Br. 7; Reply Br. 2-3.
This argument is not persuasive as explained above because the claims do
not require direct contact as alleged by Appellant.
For these reasons, we are not apprised of Examiner error and we
sustain the rejection of claims 1-5, 7-9, and 13.

Appeal 2011-009461
Application 11/405,795

5
DECISION
We AFFIRM the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1-5, 7-9, and
13.
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

ELD