Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525
1 interlock on a rectangular box. (Br. p. 12, ll. 1-3). The Appellant urges that
2 the opposing closure flaps extending from the shorter sides would not be
3 capable of extending far enough across the box to meet at their ends and
4 interlock. (Br. p. 12, ll. 3-12). This argument is unpersuasive.
5 First, we observe that the cited prior art teachings are directed to a
6 person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226
7 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, DeMay’s box already has
8 appropriately sized flaps. The skilled artisan would have used correctly
9 sized flaps to properly close a rectangular-shaped paper box.
10 Second, the Appellant urges that DeMay teaches a box for enclosing
11 food and liquid while Collins does not contemplate a structure capable of
12 retaining liquids. Accordingly, the Appellant suggests that hindsight must
13 be the reason the references have been combined. (Br. p. 12, ll. 12-17).
14 This argument is without persuasive merit. As noted above, Collins’
15 closures are stated to have desirable properties, which provide ample
16 motivation to make the combination with DeMay.
17 We therefore affirm this rejection as it relates to claim 8.
18 The Appellant has argued claim 9 separately.
19 Claim 9 reads as follows:
20 9. A reclosable food container assembled from a unitary blank, the
21 container comprising:
22 a bottom panel;
23 a first pair of opposing side panels extending from the
24 bottom panel;
25 a second pair of opposing side panels extending from the
26 bottom panel;
27 a plurality of foldable gussets; each gusset connecting
28 two adjacent side panels;
16
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013