Appeal No. 2001-1462 Page 2
Application No. 09/306,516
BACKGROUND
The appellant’s invention relates to a shipping carton for
glass bottles and pulp inserts for use therewith (specification,
page 1). A copy of the claims under appeal is set forth in the
appendix to the appellant’s brief.
The examiner relied upon the following prior art references
in rejecting the appealed claims:
De Reamer 2,216,339 Oct. 1, 1940
Herrick et al. (Herrick) 2,547,005 Apr. 3, 1951
Watanabe et al. (Watanabe) 5,038,961 Aug. 13, 1991
The following rejections are before us for review.1
Claims 7 and 9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over De Reamer in view of Watanabe and
Herrick.
Claims 10-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over De Reamer in view of Herrick.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the above-noted
rejections, we make reference to the answer (Paper No. 12) for
the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections
1 Claims 7-14 also stand rejected under the judicially created doctrine
of obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 5,
7, 9 and 14 of U.S. Pat. No. 5,975,300, which issued on the parent Application
No. 08/882,737 of the instant application. However, in that appellant has
elected to file a terminal disclaimer rather than appeal this rejection, the
double patenting rejection is not before us.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007