Appeal No. 2000-2039
Application 09/176,608
also connected by a diagonal “cut” line of perforations 36, 36a
extending along each side of the box to the hinge line 24. The
uncut portions between the perforations break when the box is
opened for the first time. Figures 4 through 7 show the single
integral blank from which the box is formed.
The appellants do not challenge the examiner’s implicit
determination (see page 3 in the answer) that the Gorton box
blank responds to all of the limitations in claim 1 except for
that requiring each of the diagonal cut lines to include “a
single uncut portion about midway along its length in the range
of .020 to .065 inches.”
The appellants also do not challenge the examiner’s finding
(see page 4 in the answer) that the admitted prior art box blank
meets all but the same diagonal cut line limitation in claim 1.
As shown and described, the admitted prior art cut lines 54, 56
do not include any uncut portions.
In rejecting claim 1, the examiner concludes (see pages 3
through 5 in the answer) that Gorton’s disclosure of perforations
36, 36a would have suggested modifying each of the diagonal cut
lines in either the Gorton box blank or the admitted prior art
box blank to embody “a single uncut portion about midway along
its length in the range of .020 to .065 inches” as required by
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007