Appeal 2006-2859
Application 11/062,725
1 because this argument is not commensurate in scope with claim 1, which
2 does not recite a shipping carton. We will also sustain the rejection of claims
3 4, 5, and 6 because the Appellants have not argued the separate patentability
4 of these claims.
5 We will also sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 4, 5, and 6
6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Fuss in view of Alivizatos
7 because Fuss alone discloses the subject matter of these claims.
8 We will sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2, 3, 8, 9, and 10 as
9 we find that Alivizaros discloses a net bag. In this regard we are not
10 persuaded by the Appellants’ argument (Appeal Br. 16) that the combination
11 requires that the net would not allow beads between 1.5 and 5 millimeters to
12 pass through while at the same time allowing the net to be deformable in
13 three-dimensions. Firstly, we find no disclosure in Fuss that the beads are
14 between 1.5 and 5 millimeters. In addition, in our view a person of ordinary
15 skill in the art would adjust the openings in the net so that the beads would
16 not pass through. We note that Fuss discloses holes 27 can be any suitable
17 size and spacing (col. 2, ll. 29 to 31). We will likewise sustain this rejection
18 as it is directed to claim 7 because the Appellant has not argued the separate
19 patentability of this claim.
20 We will not sustain this rejection as it is directed to claim 11 because
21 neither Fuss nor Alivizatos discloses a membrane having self-adherent
22 characteristics.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013