Appeal No. 2004-1206
Application No. 09/826,473
would have construed the term “packaging container” to include
the packaging container for liquid beverages taught by Wolfe and
not limited this term to the exemplary conventional corrugated
paperboard shipping containers taught by the specification. In
other words, one of ordinary skill in this art would have
recognized that appellants’ specification taught what was
included as a “packaging container” but the specification did not
exclude other packaging containers known in the art.
Appellants argue that Wolfe does not teach or disclose
appellants’ requirement that no more than two inks may be cyan,
magenta or yellow process primary colors (Brief, page 4). This
argument is not well taken. As correctly argued by the examiner
(Answer, page 9), Wolfe only uses two transparent inks and thus
must meet the claimed requirement.
Appellants argue that Wolfe is directed to an apparatus for
printing on cylindrical beverage cans and thus is not analogous
art (Brief, pages 4-5). As also correctly noted by the examiner
(Answer, page 9), arguments that the prior art reference is non-
analogous art are not germane to a rejection based on section
102. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1350-51, 213 USPQ 1, 7 (CCPA
1982).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007