Appeal No. 2001-1462 Page 3
Application No. 09/306,516
and to the brief and reply brief (Paper Nos. 9 and 13) for the
appellant’s arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellant's specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Turning first to the examiner’s rejection of claims 10-14,
we note that claim 10 recites a step of “removably securing a
half insert to each of the first and second bottom minor flaps”
and claim 13 recites a step of “removably securing a half insert
to each of the first and second top minor flaps.” Similarly,
claim 14 recites “first and second half inserts formed of a non-
plastic material and cooperative securing means removably
securing said first and second half inserts to said first and
second minor flaps” (emphasis ours).
As explained in appellant’s specification from page 11, line
21, to page 12, line 34, the disclosed structure for removably
securing the half inserts to the minor flaps includes the lock
tabs 66, 67 in the flaps and the slots 126, 127 in the inserts.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007