Ex parte HALE - Page 7




          Appeal No. 96-1604                                                          
          Application 08/272,906                                                      


          the fiberboard hogshead of Sproull is the requirement that "the             
          hogshead must be constructed to diametrically enlarge 8% beyond             
          its initial dimensions during a pressing operation" (column 6,              
          lines 5-7).  Sproull allows for this diametrical enlargement by             
          either forming each zipper tape section 20 with a stretchable               
          portion (column 5, lines 50-51 and column 6, lines 7-14) or by              
          forming the body "in whole or in part of an extensible paper,               
          which, in itself, could stretch during the pressing operation"              
          (column 6, lines 15-17).                                                    
               In rejecting appealed claims 6 through 9 and 22, the                   
          examiner has applied the additional teachings of Carpenter,                 
          Hancock and Sherk.  Carpenter has been applied for its teaching             
          of a fiberboard container having curved sidewalls and rounded               
          corners (Figures 1 and 4).  Hancock has been applied for its                
          teaching of an H-shaped connector (Figure 12) for joining edges             
          of panels to form a knockdown container, and Sherk has been                 
          applied to show a fiberboard container having end closures with             
          skirts 18 extending below (or above) the planar plate portion of            
          the end closure (Figure 5).                                                 
               As noted above, the initial burden of establishing a prima             
          facie case of obviousness rests upon the examiner.  In estab-               
          lishing a prima facie case of obviousness under 35 U.S.C.  103,            

                                          7                                           





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007