Appeal No. 2001-0557 Page 5
Application 09/376,548
glove container to meet these terms of the claim “to allow the container to be fabricated
less expensively and [to] simplify mold design.” See Answer, pages 4 and 5. We do not
agree.
Marks does not disclose a window. Haarlander discloses a window in a lunchbox
for the purpose of allowing a display insert to be viewed. The Haarlander window is
separate from the panel (40) that frames it, the supporting gasket (47), and the body
element upon which it is mounted. Cavan discloses a carton in which a window is
provided in one end to permit the contents of the carton to be viewed. While the outer
window is flush with the outer surface of the carton, it is not integrally formed therewith.
From our perspective, the combined teachings of the three applied references
would not have suggested the claimed second body element being integrally formed with a
relatively thinner window area bounded by a relatively thicker body area. This being the
case, a prima facie case of obviousness has not been established with regard to the
subject matter recited in claim 1, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 1 or, it
follows, of claims 2 and 5-10, which depend therefrom.
We reach the opposite conclusion, however, with regard to independent method
claim 17, which in the first step establishes a package made of non-flaccid plastic defining
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007