Appeal No. 1998-0953
Application No. 08/467,084
(British Patent Document)
The following rejections are before us for review:2
claims 1, 3, 4, 6, 9, 10, 13, 15, 18, 19 and 31
through 33
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Holcomb in view of Canno;3
claims 5 and 14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Holcomb in view of Canno, as applied
to claims 1 and 13, and further in view of Carter;
claims 7, 8, 16 and 17 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as being unpatentable over Holcomb in view of Canno, as
applied to claims 1 and 13, and further in view of Craig; and
claims 11, 20 and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Holcomb in view of Canno, as
2In the final rejection, claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 31-33 were also
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. Since no mention of this
rejection has been made by the examiner in the answer, we presume that the
examiner has withdrawn the final rejection of claims 1, 3-11, 13-21 and 31-33
on this ground. Ex parte Emm, 118 USPQ 180, 181 (Bd. App. 1957).
We note that claim 4 is inconsistent with claim 1 from which it3
depends. Claim 1 recites that it is the second adhesive seal which is
disposed to adhere to an exterior surface of the second panel. For purposes
of our review, we construe claim 4 as reciting that the second adhesive seal
is positioned on the fold-over flap. Correction of claim 4 is in order upon
return of this application to the jurisdiction of the examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007