Appeal No. 2000-0522
Application No. 08/934,826
both the open and closed configurations. Likewise, we also note that claim 4 does not require that the3
generally trapezoidal shaped sides present themselves in both the open and closed configurations of the
bowl. In fact, the appellant's disclosed bowl exhibits trapezoidal sides only in the closed configuration,
as noted by a comparison of Figures 1 and 2.
The examiner concedes that Akai does not clearly teach that the ratio of the height of
the opposed sides to the larger width of the bottom of the package disclosed therein is "less than
2 to 1," as required by each of the independent claims. However, the examiner takes the
position that
[i]t would have been an obvious matter of design choice in Akai to make the
ratio of the height of the sides to the larger width of the rectangular bottom is
[sic] less than 2 to 1, since such a modification would have involved a mere
change in the size of a component. A change in size is generally recognized as
being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237
(CCPA 1955) [final rejection, page 2].
Akai is silent with regard to the dimensions of the package (stand pack) and the relative height
and width thereof. Further, while there is no indication that the drawings are to scale, the
height of the illustrated package (Figure 1) appears to be more than twice the length of either of
the two dimensions of the bottom. Accordingly, we agree with the examiner's finding that
Akai cannot be said to disclose the recited ratio.
3Limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability. In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344,
1348, 213 USPQ 1, 5 (CCPA 1982).
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007