COMMISSIONER'S DECISION
OBVIOUSNESS: Necked-in Can Body
Two claims were rejected for being indefinite and too broad in scope.
Final Action: Affirmed - amendment accepted
******************
This decision deals with a request for review by the Commissioner of
Patents of the Examiner's Final Action dated December 30, 1975, on applica-
tion 113,864 (Class 190-83). The application was filed on May 25, 1971,
in the name of George W. Thompson et al, and is entitled "Necked-In Can
Body And Method And Apparatus For Making Same." An amendment to this
application, dated May 27, 1977, was presented to the Patent Appeal Board
just prior to the Board's consideration of this case. The examiner is of
the opinion that this amendment overcomes the objections made in the
Final Action. This amendment will now be considered by the Board.
This application relates to necked-in can bodies and more particularly to
can bodies wherein at least the end portions of the side seams are of a
lapped construction in conjunction with a deformable bonding material. Figure
5, shown below, depicts that arrangement:
(See formula 1)
In refusing claims in the Final Action the examiner had this to say (in part)
as follows:
Claim 4 is again rejected as indefinite since it sets forth a
desired result - the side seam thickness being uniform. After
a very careful consideration of this application by the present
examiner it has been concluded that the invention in this
application involves the features outlined at page 9 lines 7-19.
This required a statement in claim 4 like that m claim 2 to the
effect that there is a die ring 17 a floating post 18 plus three
can body wall thicknesses plus the normal thickness of bonding
material. When the lap joint is formed the desired result is
achieved, and it is the means and function noted above which are
crucial, essential and necessary to so achieve it. Thus these
essentials must appear in claim 4 for it to become allowable.
Claim 1 is rejected for failing to define the inventive method
as disclosed. It is held that this method, according to page 9
lines 7-19, requires the features of present claim 2. The
compressing feature of present claim 1 is not seen to be essential
to the invention but is seen to be an additional feature outlined
at page 9 line 20- page 10 line 6. Thus this feature can be
removed in any broadest method claim.
The applicant submitted an amendment, dated April 30, 1977, to the Final
Action. The examiner did not accept that amendment as overcoming the objections
in the Final Action. In support of the allowance of the claims the applicant
submitted a second amendment (May 27, 1977) and stated his position (in part)
as follows:
Cancel claims 1 to 11 presently on file and substitute therefor
amended claims 1 to 11 enclosed herewith in duplicate.
Claim 1 presently on file has been amended at line 8 by inserting
the word "floating" before the word "post". Claims 2 to 5 presently
on file remain unaltered. Claim 6 presently on file has been re-
written in order to recite that the thickness of the side seam
along the necked-in end portion is made uniform by forcing one end por-
tion of the can body around a floating post and into an externally
confined space of a diameter equal to a diameter of the post plus
three times the can body wall thickness plus the predetermined
thickness of the bonding material.
Claims 7 to 11 presently on file remain unaltered.
The above amendment is in addition to the amendments made to the claims in
the amendment of April 30, 1976. Amended claim 1 now reads:
A method of forming a can body having a necked-in end, the necked-
in end having a bonded lapped seam of a predetermined uniform
thickness, the method comprising the following steps:
(a) forming a can body having a side seam, at least one end portion
of which is of a lapped construction with a deformable bonding
material therein;
(b) forcing said at least one end portion around a floating post
of a necking-in die, the necking-in die having a radial clearance
around the post equal to three times wall thickness of the can
body plus the predetermined uniform thickness of the deformable
bonding material, thereby deforming the deformable bonding material
in the at least one end portion of the can body so as to reshape
the same, whereby the deformed bonding material in the at least
one end portion is of uniform thickness, with the wall thickness
of the remainder of the end portion of the can body remaining un-
diminished, the uniform thickness of the deformable bonding material
adapted to facilitate formation of a tight double seam between the
can body and an end unit adapted to be attached to the end portion
of the can body.
Claim 1 was rejected for failing to define the inventive method as disclosed.
Amended claim 1 above however, overcomes that objection and the claim should
be allowed.
In the Final Action claim 4, now claim 6, was also rejected for being indefinite.
Amended claim 6 reads:
A can body having a side seam and at least one necked-in end
portion, said side seam being of a lapped construction at least
along said necked-in end portion and including a deformable bond-
ing material, and the thickness of said side seam along said
necked-in end portion being uniform to facilitate formation of
a tight double seam between the can body and an end unit adapted
to be attached to the end portion of the can body, the thickness
of the side seam along the necked-in end portion being made
uniform by forcing said one end portion around a floating post
and into an externally confined space of a diameter equal to a
diameter of said post plus three times the can body wall
thickness plus the predetermined thickness of said bonding material.
The examiner stated that he was prepared to accept this amended claim as over-
coming the objection of the Final Action. We are also satisfied that this
claim now overcomes the rejection under Section 36 of the Patent Act. The
claim is now in condition for allowance.
In summary, we are satisfied that the present claims overcome the rejection
of the Final Action. We recommend that these claims be accepted.
J.F. Hughes
Acting Chairman
Patent Appeal Board, Ottawa
Having studied the prosecution of this application and reviewed the recommend-
an on of the Patent Appeal Board I have decided to accept the amended claims.
The application is returned to the examiner for resumption of prosecution.
J.H.A. Gariepy
Commissioner of Patents
Agent for Applicant
Alan Swabey & Co.
625 President Kennedy Ave.
Montreal, Quebec
Dated at Hull, Quebec
this 15th day of June, 1977