Case Name: In re Donald E. Dailey and Anton F. Eilers
Court: United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1966-03-24
Citations: 53 C.C.P.A. 1029
Docket Number: No. 7491
Parties: In re Donald E. Dailey and Anton F. Eilers
Judges: Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Martin, Smith, and Almond, Jr., Associate Judges
Reporter: Court of Customs and Patent Appeals Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 1029–1043

Head Matter:
357 F. 2d 669; 149 USPQ 47
In re Donald E. Dailey and Anton F. Eilers
(No. 7491)
United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals,
March 24, 1966
John Rea> Allen (Richard 8. Phillips, of counsel) for appellants.
Olwrence W. Moore (J. F. Nalcamura, of counsel) for the Commissioner of Patents.
[Oral argument November 3, 1965, by Mr. Phillips and Mr. Nakamura]
Before Worley, Chief Judge, and Rich, Martin, Smith, and Almond, Jr., Associate Judges

Opinion:
Worley, Chief Judge,
delivered the opinion of the court:
This appeal is from the decision of the Board of Appeals which affirmed the examiner's rejection of claims 25-28 in appellant's application for "Nursing Container."
The invention relates to a disposable nursing container for infants. Appellants state:
The nursing container with which the invention is concerned is collapsible so that air is not admitted as the contents are drained. Accordingly the likelihood of the infant swallowing' air during feeding, believed to be a major cause of colic, is reduced.

A further feature is that the top section of the container has the nipple receiving opening therein and the bottom section is collapsible into the top section. The bottom section is more flexible than the top section to facilitate the collapse thereof.
The particular construction which appellants disclose to achieve those results is illustrated in the following drawings:
Appellants describe that construction and its use in their specification as follows:
Top and bottom sections 11 and 12 of container 10 are preferably of a thin formed plastic sheet material or the like. By "plastic" any suitable flexible material is intended, including rubber, synthetic plastics and the like. Both sections have a generally spherical configuration and are somewhat less than hemispherical in extent. In the specific container illustrated in the drawings, the two sections are defined by a central angle of the order of 80°. This relationship provides a finished container which has a rounded configuration and is convenient to hold. *
At the time of feeding, pressure [is applied] to the wall of the container forcing the nipple out. At the same time, any air left in the container during filling is expelled through the nipple so that the infant swallows no air from the container. *
If the infant requires stimulation to cause it to nurse properly, a slight pressure applied to the bottom of the container by the palm of the hand forces some of the formula out through the nipple into the infant's mouth. As the formula is withdrawn from the container the bottom section 12 collapses within the upper section 11 as indicated in Figure 6 forcing formula into the nipple keeping it filled. This collapse starts at the juncture line 13 between the container sections and progresses inwardly therefrom so that formula is not trapped between collapsed portions of the bottom section wall and the wall of the top section. It is not necessary for air to enter the container as the formula is withdrawn and the cross cut nipple acts as a Chech valve allowing only the outward flow of formula and restricting inward flow of air. Thus the likelihood of the infant swallowing substantial quantities of air during nursing is reduced. As the container and nipple are free of air at all times during feeding, it is not necessary that the container be elevated above the infant, but it may be in any position above or below. [Emphasis supplied]
Claim 25 is illustrative:
25. A disposable, plastic infant nursing container of the character described, comprising: a top section of self-sustaining formed material having a nipple opening therein; a bottom section of self-sustaining, formed flexible plastic material sealed to the first section and collapsible thereinto, said bottom section being more flexible than the top section and having a shape such that in the collapsed condition is closely mated with the interior of the top section, said bottom section retaining a position in which it is placed, whereby the bottom section readily collapses upon the withdrawal of the container contents, without retarding or aiding the flow of the contents therefrom; and a nipple mounted on said top section and communicating with the opening therein, said nipple having a slit therein defining a valved nursing opening, whereby the interior of the container is sealed and during nursing the container contents are withdrawn without admission of air to the container, causing collapse of the bottom container section.
Claim 26 defines the valved nursing opening as a cross-cut valve. Claim 27, while defining no particular nipple opening structure, recites the configuration of the top and bottom sections of the container as that of "a portion of a sphere less than a hemisphere." In claim 28, the central angle of those spherical portions is about 80°.
The references are:
Bardin- 2,433, 806 Dec. 30, 1947
Allen- 2,446,451 Aug. 3, 1948
Blanchett- 2, 989, 961 June 27, 1961
Matzen _ 554,071 Feb. 4, 1896
Matzen's nursing bottle is shown in the following drawing:
Matzen's object is:
to provide a bottle in winch no air is admitted and in which no vacuum is formed as the milk is withdrawn by the baby, and to provide a bottle from which the milk will flow continuously and evenly, whatever the size of the opening in the nipple.
The patentee describes his construction as consisting
of a nursing-bottle made of two parts, one of which is flexible, the other rigid, and in which the flexible part operates to prevent a vacuum in the bottle as the milk is drawn out by the child and promotes evenness in the flow, Fig. 2 is a view of said bottle when the two parts are connected and the bottle has been substantially emptied, the flexible part in this case being-drawn into the rigid part.
While part A is made of a rigid material, part B consists of
flexible material so thin and light that it will readily respond to the suction of the infant through the nipple and surrender itself to such suction with practically no resistance whatever of its own, thus following the withdrawal of the milk and at last losing itself bodily in the upper half, A, and filling the space thereof, as seen in Fig. 2. I believe that a good quality of elastic rubber is tbe best material from which to make tbe part B, and now use very tbin vulcanized rubber for tbis purpose.
Matzen describes tbe use of his container thus:
Tbe nipple is put on and then tbe collapsible part B is compressed until all of tbe air is forced out through tbe bole in tbe nipple, whereupon tbe bottle is ready to give to the child. As tbe baby sucks tbe milk from tbe bottle, tbe collapsible part B is gradually drawn into tbe part A, thus reducing the capacity of tbe bottle, and tbis goes on until the milk is withdrawn and said part B substantially fills tbe part A, .
Matzen noted several problems with respect to "ordinary" nursing bottles. In the use of the ordinary rigid glass bottle, the nipple construction necessarily must allow air to be admitted into the bottles. In the use of the ordinary rigid glass bottle, the nipple construction necessarily must allow air to be admitted into the bottle, or the flow of milk will cease. Thus the infant had to stop sucking frequently in order that air may be admitted. The presence of air in the bottle results in the baby sucking in air with the milk, with colic as a consequence. The nipple opening in the ordinary bottle had to be relatively large; if small, on the order of a pinhole, the rubber surrounding the hole effictively sealed the nipple opening to entry of air and prevented further withdrawal of milk as well. On the other hand Matzen stated:
if tbe bole iu tbe nipple is so large that it will not close up and exclude tbe air, it is at tbe same time so large that tbe baby gets tbe milk too fast.
With my bottle tbe finest pin-bole may be formed in tbe nipple, and a small but regular and uninterrupted stream will flow tbrougb it.
Matzen also noted his bottle
bas tbe exceptional and distinguishing advantage of being ready to yield its contents to tbe child whatever tbe position of tbe bottle may be. Indeed, one position is practically as good as another and tbe milk comes freely in all positions.
A detailed discussion of Allen appears unnecessary, beyond noting he discloses a similar nursing container having a bottom portion which
automatically collapses and retracts into the rigid neck as tbe last of the liquid is sucked from tbe container by an infant using the nursing unit, in this way providing a non-colic nursing unit in view of tbe fact that no accumulation of air is permitted within tbe container.
Blanchett discloses a nipple construction for use with ordinary rigid nursing bottles in which the nipple opening may consist of a cross cut, an I cut, a Y cut, a single hole, or multiple holes. Blan-chett states:
jpue various "cuts" are preferable to tbe boles because they do iiot leak when tbe nursing unit is turned upside down. Neither do they become plugged.
The board did not find it necessary to discuss Bardin, nor do we.
The board agreed with the examiner that claims 25-28 were un-patentable over Matzen or Allen in view of Blanchett. It found claims 25 and 26 to distinguish over Matzen only in terms of the type of nipple opening employed, and claims 27 and 28 to distinguish only in reciting a "less than a hemisphere" configuration. In answer to appellants' argument that their particular slit nipple opening provides a self-sealing action to prevent continuous flow and loss of formula from the nurser, the board noted that Blanchett fully appreciated the ability of such an opening to prevent leaks. With respect to claims 27 and 28, it further agreed that the configuration of the container is a "mere matter of choice" not significantly novel over Matzen.
Appellants urge that Matzen is devoid of any suggestion of the desirability of combining a collapsible container with a valved nipple which is responsive only to the sucking of the infant, thereby providing intermittent milk flow. Indeed, appellants state that Matzen promotes the idea of a nipple with a pinhole in it as desirable in order to obtain regular and uninterrupted flow of milk from the container. It is appellant's position that the prior art recognizes neither the problem nor result desired and cannot be said to suggest a solution to the problem.
Taking appellants' argument at face value, we think one skilled in the art could hardly be unaware, after reading Matzen, that continuous flow or leakage might be an undesirable feature of the Mat-zen nursing container construction. Blanchett also recognizes the problem of fluid leakage from a hole opening in a nipple when the container is held upside down and, in a matter-of-fact manner, discloses the solution to that problem — the use of a "slit" nipple opening. We think one of ordinary skill in the art would find it obvious to use the slit nipple of Blanchett in the collapsible container of Mat-zen in order to achieve intermittent flow responsive to sucking.
As noted above, Matzen discloses that the flexible portion of his container is drawn into the rigid top portion, filling the space thereof. Appellants have presented no argument which convinces us that the particular configuration of their container is significant or is anything more than one of numerous configurations a person of ordinary skill in the art would find obvious for the purpose of providing mating surfaces in the collapsed container of Matzen. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459.
The decision of the board is affirmed.
Serial No. 814, 110, filed May 18, 1959.
As the Solicitor points out, it is not at all certain that appellants' interpretation of Matzen is consistent with the actual teaching of that reference. While appellants interpret Matzen as disclosing a container which provides a continuous flow of milk at all times, it seems equally likely that Matzen's container, having a nipple with a pinhole, provides a continuous flow only so long as the infant is sucking, which the infant may do without necessity of stopping to allow air into the container.