Appeal No. 2000-1789 Page 14
Application No. 08/699,572
The appellant's argument with respect to claim 16 is unpersuasive for the
following reasons.
First, as set forth above, both Kaplan and Giacovas implicitly deal with the
difficulty in separating stored blanks. Kaplan deals with this problem by using a
cohesive coating on only one side of the blank which is non-adherent so that the blanks
can be packed in stacks front to back, one upon the other, without adherence to each
other. Giacovas treats this problem by using a pressure-sensitive adhesive so as to
prevent a stack of the collapsed cartons from sticking together. Furthermore, it would
appear that stacks of Giacovas' cartons would have a cover strip forming a surface
discontinuity extending to an edge of the blank creating an air passage for precluding
formation of an air vacuum suction lock between abutting blanks due to the increased
thickness provided by the adhesive tape as shown in Figure 1A of Giacovas.
Second, the argument is not persuasive that any error in the examiner's
determination regarding the obviousness of the subject matter of claim 16 has
occurred. As long as some motivation or suggestion to combine the references is
provided by the prior art taken as a whole, the law does not require that the references
be combined for the reasons contemplated by the inventor. See In re Dillon, 919 F.2d
688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S. 904
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007