Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525
1 The Appellant next urges that the Examiner is incorrectly relying on
2 Thiolat for its drawings 3 and 4 where the drawings are not to scale. The
3 Appellant is correct that drawings are not necessarily to scale and should not
4 be relied upon for precise measurements. However, in this instance we
5 again observe that Thiolat is not being relied upon for a precise
6 measurement - one of ordinary skill in the art would have discerned that
7 almost 100% of the opening of Thiolat is covered by the closure flaps.
8 Additionally, Thiolat is cumulative of DeMay and Collins. Each describes a
9 certain amount of coverage of the opening with flaps, which amount is
10 within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine. Accordingly,
11 we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in this regard.
12 The Appellant has recited claim 13 separately. The Appellant again
13 urges that claim 13 is “separately patentable because it includes the
14 additional element of panels defined by score lines” (Br. p. 19, ll. 7-8). The
15 Appellant again urges that “score lines” are to be defined as “partially
16 penetrating the card stock material.” (Id., ll. 16-17). No evidence as to how
17 score lines renders this claim patentable has been adduced. Accordingly, we
18 are not persuaded by this repeated argument.
19
20 CONCLUSION OF LAW
21 On the record before us, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
22 erred in any finding of fact or conclusion of law. Accordingly:
23 The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-11 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
24 as being unpatentable over DeMay and Collins is AFFIRMED.
20
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013