Appeal 2007-1715 Page 16
Application 10/033,224
the container. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to consider the packing
material weight in determining the shipping cost.
D. Conclusion of Law
On the record before us, Appellant has failed to show that the Examiner
erred in rejecting claim 10 over the prior art.
Claim 11
Claim 11 reads as follows:
11. The method claimed in claim 10, further including the steps of
determining the weight of the packing material using the volume of the
container minus the volumes of the articles in the container multiplied by the
density of the packing material.
A. Issue
Appellant argues that “[t]he Examiner has not cited any art in the context of
the claimed invention that shows that it would have been obvious to: determine the
weight of the packing material using the volume of the container minus the
volumes of the articles in the container multiplied by the density of the packing
material.” Br. 21. The Examiner contends that “multiplying density by volume in
order to calculate a weight is well known, hence obvious, to those of ordinary skill
in the art.” Answer 7. The issue is whether it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to determine the weight of the packing material using the
volume of the container minus the volumes of the articles in the container
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013