Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525
1 a first pair of opposing closure panels extending from the
2 first pair of opposing side panels and each closure panel having
3 an opposing hook closure device; and
4 a second pair of opposing closure panels extending from
5 the second pair of opposing side panels and each closure panel
6 having an opposing closure device,
7 wherein an area of either pair of opposing closure panels
8 exceed 85% of an area of an opening defined by edges of the
9 pairs of opposing side panels distal to the bottom panel.
10
11 The Examiner has found that Thiolat describes a blank having a
12 bottom panel, opposing first and second side panels, opposed first closure
13 panel having a hook closure device G, and an opposed second closure
14 having a closure device. The Examiner has additionally found that coverage
15 would be about 100% of the opening when portions G are mated or portion I
16 inserted into portion K. (Answer, p. 5, ll. 11-15).
17 The Appellant urges that Thiolat fails to teach or suggest that either
18 pair of opposing closure panels exceed 85% of the opening. (Br. p. 20, ll. 9-
19 11). This argument is premised on Appellant’s belief that Thiolat’s
20 drawings are not to scale. Appellant also notes that Thiolat is silent on
21 dimensions. Arguments based on drawing measurements are said to be of
22 little value. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F. 3d 951,
23 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1490 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
24 The flaw in this argument is that the Examiner’s position is not based
25 on drawing measurement. Figures 3 and 4 of Thiolat show Flaps F and F1
26 which have a hook-type securing device at the end. To function, they must
27 meet in the middle. Given that they are the same width dimension as the
28 bottom, and the constructed box is formed with right angles, one of ordinary
29 skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have recognized
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013