Appeal No. 2005-1826
Application No. 10/210,046
In claim 1, “each said corner support
member...being seated in recesses” is confusing. It
seems only one corner is seated in one corresponding
recess.
In claim 9, “it’s” should be changed to --its--.
In claim 9, line 8, and claim 14, line 7, “once
fold line” should be changed to --one fold line--.
In claim 16, the rectangular tabs do not have the
diagonal fold lines. The drawings show only the
quarter circle having the diagonal fold lines [answer,
page 4].
These criticisms are reasonable on their face and not
specifically disputed on appeal. Instead, the appellant
challenges the rejection on the basis of an allegedly improper
refusal by the examiner to enter the amendment submitted
subsequent to final rejection. In the appellant’s view, the
amendment, if entered, would overcome the examiner’s concerns.
As explained above, however, this Board has no jurisdiction to
review the examiner’s action in this regard. Hence, the
appellant’s argument is misplaced.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 112,
second paragraph, rejection of claims 1-5, 7, 9, 13 and 14-20.1
1 The appealed claims contain numerous inconsistencies in
terminology. For example, claim 1 utilizes the terms “score
lines” and “scoring” to refer to the same structure, and lacks a
proper antecedent basis for the terms “said bottom section,”
“panels” and “said reinforcing section.” In the event of further
prosecution, steps should be taken to review the claims and
eliminate these problems.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007