Appeal No. 2004-0404
Application No. 08/992,878
the surface area of each compact disc 12 left exposed on the
tiered support 20" (column 3, lines 22 through 27).
As is evident from the foregoing descriptions, the
Fothergill, Tullar, Lewis, Buttery and Warfield references
pertain to distinctive packages for diverse products. None of
them is particularly responsive to the specific dimensional
limitations set forth in claims 1 and 19. The only suggestion
for combining their disparate teachings in the manner proposed by
the examiner so as to arrive at the subject matter recited in
claims 1 and 19 stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly
derived from the appellant’s disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1 and 19, and dependent
claims 3, 6 and 8, as being unpatentable over Fothergill in view
of Tullar, Lewis and either Buttery or Warfield.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007