Ex Parte Roseth - Page 13

                Appeal 2006-3311                                                                              
                Application 10/392,525                                                                        

           1    Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1341, 60 USPQ2d 1851,                          
           2    1854 (Fed. Cir. 2001).  Generally, terms in a patent claim are given their                    
           3    plain, ordinary, and accustomed meaning to one of ordinary skill in the                       
           4    relevant art. (Id.).  Thiolat forms its blanks with score lines (Thiolat, col. 1,             
           5    ll. 36-40), and the Appellant has not shown how its score lines are different.                
           6          Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this argument and shall affirm                     
           7    this rejection as it pertains to claim 13.                                                    
           8          ii) The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-11 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C.                        
           9    § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeMay and Collins.                                        
          10          The Examiner has found that DeMay describes a container with a                          
          11    bottom panel, first side panels 6, 7, second side panels 7, 8 and gussets.  The               
          12    Examiner has found that DeMay teaches all of the claimed elements except                      
          13    for hook devices.  The Examiner additionally found Collins teaches that it                    
          14    was known in the art to provide hook devices on all closure panels.                           
          15          The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of                        
          16    ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide                       
          17    Collins’ hook devices in DeMay for better panel securing.  Alternatively, the                 
          18    Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to employ the gussets                      
          19    of DeMay in the box of Collins to prevent leaking.  (Answer, p. 3, ll. 11-18).                
          20          The Appellant first urges that the examiner “fails to indicate where                    
          21    within DeMay, or Collins for that matter, the element of closing the closure                  
          22    flaps in an arbitrary order is taught or suggested.”  (Br. p. 9, ll. 12-14).                  
          23          First, the claim does not read “closed and secured” in an arbitrary                     
          24    order.  We find that closed means shut.  DeMay’s closures may be closed in                    
          25    an arbitrary order, even if not secured.                                                      


                                                     13                                                       

Page:  Previous  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013