Appeal No. 2000-2045 Page 10
Application No. 09/206,253
bottom” of the container. For reasons explained above with regard to the naming of the
parts of the Cornish package, from our perspective Cornish teaches attaching the ends of
the label together along the side of the container rather than at or adjacent the bottom
thereof, and we therefore will not sustain the rejection of claims 30 and 31.
The Rejection of Claims 16 and 22-27
These claims stand rejected on the basis of Bates, Cornish, and the “related prior
art.”
Claim 16 adds to claim 15 the requirement that the label have serrated side edges.
This feature has been acknowledged by the appellants to be “known per se” for such labels
(specification, page 4). Thus, it is our opinion that to provide the label in the modified
Bates container with such a feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art for the known advantages thereof, and we will sustain this rejection.
Claim 22 adds to claim 16 the centrally located indicia. As we stated above with
regard to claim 17, the combined teachings of Bates and Cornish do not render this
feature obvious, and it is our further view that such is not alleviated by considering the
“related prior art.” The rejection of claim 22 is not sustained, nor is the rejection of claims
25 and 27, which depend from claim 22 and thus also contain this limitation.
The rejection of claim 23, which adds the container size and label length limitations
to claim 16, is sustained for the reasons expressed above with regard to claim 18.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007