PTAB reverses examiner on obviousness in Ex parte Konefal
The Examiner has not established, by evidence or technical reasoning, a sufficient factual basis to reasonably support the conclusion that a skilled artisan would have had a reason to add an extra wall to the cap of Akers or reduce the size of the cap so that it is insertable in the container when Akers teaches that container caps with large, radial-overhanging skirts produce an awkward and aesthetically displeasing appearance of the assembled package and the cap dome 35 is sized to provide an inner wall of the same general diameter as the inner diameter of the container at the mouth for aesthetic reasons instead of using a prior art inner plug-in arrangement as in Figure 6. Akers, col. 4, l. 60 to col. 5, l. 3; figs. 5, 6. An object of Akers’ invention is to provide a package with a clean-cut, aesthetically pleasing appearance that requires a minimum amount of material to fabricate the container and cap. Akers, col. 1, ll. 30-47. We do not sustain the rejection of claims 16 and 21.