Appeal No. 2000-0487 Page 13
Application No. 08/856,228
Lastly, the appellant argues that claim 14 is patentable
since (1) Jones requires an over wrap; (2) Jones has no fold
over cover; and (3) Jones does not engage and secure the upper
portion of the article. We find this argument unconvincing
since (1) claim 14 does not preclude an over wrap; (2) Jones
does not disclose an over wrap; (3) Jones has a fold over
cover (i.e., top wall 14 and top end flange 15); and (4) Jones
does engage and secure the upper portion of the article via
the uppermost portion of openings 40-43 in diagonal wall 13,
top wall 14 and top end flange 15 as shown in Figure 3.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is affirmed.
Claim 15
Claim 15 which depends from claim 14 has not been
separately argued by the appellant. Accordingly, we have
determined that claim 15 must be treated as falling with
independent claim 14. See In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572,
2 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987). Thus, it follows that
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007