Appeal No. 2000-1789 Page 4
Application No. 08/699,572
173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the conclusion that the claimed
subject matter is obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective
teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in
the art that would have led that individual to combine the relevant teachings of the
references to arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5
USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Rejections based on 35 U.S.C. § 103 must rest
on a factual basis with these facts being interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of
the invention from the prior art. The examiner may not, because of doubt that the
invention is patentable, resort to speculation, unfounded assumption or hindsight
reconstruction to supply deficiencies in the factual basis for the rejection. See In re
Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389
U.S. 1057 (1968).
Claims 1 and 16, the only independent claims on appeal, read as follows:
1. A knocked-down flat container blank comprising:
A) a substantially flat blank of carton stock material having a shape;
B) said blank having a pattern of fold lines formed thereon;
C) said pattern of fold lines being configured to define with said shape, at
least one captured flap and at least one capturing flap foldable and alignable in
layered overlapping relationship wherein said capturing flap is configured for
capturing at least one thickness of carton stock of said captured flap in a
sandwich-like relationship between two thicknesses of carton stock of said
capturing flap when said blank is fully assembled in the form of a three-
dimensional structure have a container shape;
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007