Appeal 2007-2897
Application 09/934,777
been motivated to provide a repeated single address or destination on pre-printed
packaging tape, as taught by Williams. We find that a writing instrument would
not have been required to circle a specific location when a repeating single address
or location is printed on the tape.
The obviousness rejection of claims 17 and 19 over Williams in view of
Okisawa is affirmed.
Claims 9-11 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for obviousness over
Kitagawa in view of Williams and Okisawa. We select claim 9 as representative of
this rejection as Appellant has not provided separate argument for other claims. 37
C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds that
Kitagawa teaches a method of packing electrolytic
capacitors within a box comprising the step of providing a box 18,
inserting the electrolytic capacitor 14 within the box 18 of corrugated
cardboard with flaps 191, 191, 192, 192. Thereafter, the flaps 191,
191, 192, 192 are closed and the box is closed by known adhesive
tapes 20 to seal the box 18. (See column 3, lines 12-31). Kitagawa
does not teach tape having preprinted indicia thereon. Williams
teaches indicia related to the address or destination of the carton.
Okisawa teaches an adhesive tape with repeated pre printed indicia 2
listing the rooms of a house in a side-by-side arrangement.
(Answer 5.)
The Examiner concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at
the time this invention was made to construct the tape of the package
taught by Kitagawa with pre-printed address indicia as taught by
Williams to provide a means to indicate the designation of the box. In
addition, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art at the time this invention was made to construct the tape taught
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013