Ex Parte Roseth - Page 19

                Appeal 2006-3311                                                                              
                Application 10/392,525                                                                        

           1    (Thiolat, col. 2, ll. 32-34).  The Examiner has additionally found that folding               
           2    the two flaps of Thiolat would result in a coverage of about 100%.                            
           3          The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to one                      
           4    of ordinary skill in the art to provide the coverage of more than 85% to                      
           5    provide added protection.  (Answer, p. 9, ll. 8-16).                                          
           6          The Appellant urges that neither Collins nor DeMay teach or suggest                     
           7    opposing closure panels exceeding 85% of an area of an opening.  Thiolat is                   
           8    said not to have suggested first and second pairs of opposing closure panels.                 
           9    (Br. p. 17, ll. 3-13).                                                                        
          10          The Appellant urges that the Examiner’s reading of Thiolat is                           
          11    “illogical and inappropriate” because it deprives Thiolat of a closure means,                 
          12    citing Thiolat, column 2, ll. 34-35.  (Br. p. 17, ll. 18-20).  Thiolat states that            
          13    its handle may be omitted and in the flaps E, E1 are replaced with lugs G, G1                 
          14    and slits H, and H1 (Thiolat, col. 2, ll. 28-30).  In other words, Thiolat                    
          15    describes a four lugged closure.   The entire section is reproduced below:                    
          16                 According to a modification which is not illustrated, the box                    
          17          need not comprise a handle.  In this case, the tabs E, E are suppressed                 
          18          and may possibly be replaced by securing means such as the lugs G,                      
          19          G1 and slits H, H1.  According to another modification, the elements                    
          20          F, F1 and the lugs G, G1 are suppressed and the parts D, D1 are                         
          21          furnished either with tongues such as E, E1 or with lugs such as G, G1                  
          22          co-acting with slits such as H, H1.  Thus they may be deprived of                       
          23          any closure means.  In practice, however, the elements F, F1 cannot                     
          24          be completely suppressed without the risk that the tongues P, P1 may                    
          25          not find sufficient material for engagement with.  Nevertheless, these                  
          26          elements can be considerably reduced, that is to say the dimensions                     
          27          just sufficient to permit the formation of the folding lines 4.                         
          28                                                                                                  
          29    (Thiolat, col. 2, ll. 27-41) (bold reflecting the Appellant’s cited portion)                  
          30    (italics reflecting the Examiner’s cited portion).                                            

                                                     19                                                       

Page:  Previous  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013