Appeal No. 1998-2063
Application No. 08/531,087
have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art any
motivation for providing the package of Reighart with an
enclosure (claim 1) or pocket (claim 9) having a slot as set
forth in the claims on appeal. In our opinion, the only
motivation to combine Reighart, Zahuranec and Bredal as posited
by the examiner is gleaned from appellant’s own specification.
Thus, it is our view that the examiner has resorted to the use
of impermissible hindsight in seeking a reason to modify “the
concept” of Reighart (Fig. 9) in light of the concepts depicted
in Zahuranec and Bredal in an effort to produce the claimed
invention.
Moreover, we note that even if the applied prior art were
to be combined in the manner urged by the examiner, the
resulting modified package of Reighart Figure 9 would not be
that set forth in the claims before us on appeal. Appellant’s
independent claim 1 requires “an enclosure” at a second end of
the sleeve that covers the first end of the container and a
portion of the tab, while independent claim 9 on appeal sets
forth “a pocket” at one end of the sleeve for receiving the tab
and for covering a portion of the tab. It is clear from
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007