Appeal No. 2000-1789 Page 12
Application No. 08/699,572
The appellant then argues (brief, page 16) that claim 1 specifies that the
adhesive is placed only on the capturing flap (i.e., no adhesive on the captured flap)
and that this limitation is not taught or suggested by the applied prior art. We agree. In
our view, the combined teachings of the applied prior art (i.e., Kaplan and Giacovas)
would have made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary
skill in the art to have replaced all the cohesive material on Kaplan's blank with
adhesive covered by release strips for the advantages taught by Giacovas. However,
this modification of Kaplan would result in a blank having adhesive placed on both the
capturing flap and the captured flap, contrary to the limitations of claim 1.1
The appellant also argues (brief, page 17) that claim 1 specifies that the
adhesive is in contact with both the capturing flap and the separable strip and that this
limitation is not taught or suggested by the applied prior art. We agree. In our view, the
combined teachings of the applied prior art (i.e., Kaplan and Giacovas) would have
made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the
art to have replaced all the cohesive material on Kaplan's blank with adhesive covered
by release strips as taught by Giacovas. Thus the capturing flap of Kaplan would be
1 The examiner did not respond to this argument of the appellant in the answer.
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007