Appeal No. 2001-1462 Page 4
Application No. 09/306,516
Likewise, the disclosed acts for removably securing the half
inserts to the minor flaps include the insertion of the lock tabs
in the slots.
Consistent with appellant’s underlying disclosure, one
skilled in the art would understand the removable securement
recited in claims 10, 13 and 14 to be one which permits the flaps
and half inserts to be removed from one another with ease and
without damage or alteration of the flaps and inserts. From our
perspective, the skilled artisan would not recognize the adhesive
attachments taught by De Reamer (page 3, left col., lines 38-53)
and Herrick (col. 2, lines 19-22) as removable securements.
Therefore, we share appellant’s view (brief, pages 8, 9 and 10;
reply brief, page 3) that De Reamer and Herrick, even if combined
as proposed by the examiner, would not have suggested the subject
matter of claims 10, 13 and 14. It follows that we shall not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 13 and 14, or
claims 11 and 12 which depend from claim 10, as being
unpatentable over De Reamer in view of Herrick.
In that the deficiency of the combination of De Reamer and
Herrick finds no cure in the teachings of Watanabe, we also shall
not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 7, which also
recites “cooperative securing means removably securing said first
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007