Appeal No. 1998-2063
Application No. 08/531,087
appellant’s disclosure that the claimed enclosure or pocket
surrounds the tab on all sides thereof, except for the area of
the slot (141) which exposes the aperture (151) in the tab and a
portion of the tab located within the slot. As can be seen from
Figure 9 of Reighart, the sleeve (40) therein has no “enclosure”
or pocket to receive the tab (50) of the container. Indeed, the
entire thrust of this embodiment of Reighart is that the tab
extends through a slot (42) in the end of the sleeve and is
entirely exposed for allowing hanging of the package from the
aperture (51) in the tab. While both Zahuranec and Bredal
disclose packages which have slots (31; 20) that expose an
aperture (31a; 18) in another portion of the container so that
the package may be hung from a hook-type support member by the
aperture, they do not teach or suggest an “enclosure” or pocket
like that required in appellant’s claims on appeal.
In light of the foregoing, we cannot sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-17 and 23-25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Reighart (Figure 9) in view of one of
Zahuranec or Bredal (Figure 2).
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007