Appeal No. 2003-0043
Application 29/065,720
A photocopy of a front, left, top isometric view of a
rectangular paperboard container supplied by appellant in the
Information disclosure Statement filed May 22, 1997 (Paper No. 2)
and admitted by appellant to be prior art (hereinafter, the APA)
The appealed design claim stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over the Gillette package in view of
Smyth and the APA. According to the examiner
It would have been obvious to a designer of ordinary
skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to
have modified the rear baseboard panel of the Gillette
package by providing it with the angled side corner cuts
similar to as suggested by the Smyth et al. Furthermore, to
provide the relative overall proportions of the Drawing
reference [the APA] to the rear panel and the front blister
(enclosure) to the Gillette package would result in an
article quite similar in general overall appearance of the
claimed design by appellant.
The modification of the basic reference in light of the
secondary prior art is proper because the applied references
are so related that the appearance of features shown in one
would suggest the application of those features to the other
(answer, pages 3-4).
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 11,
mailed January 29, 2002) for the examiner's full reasoning in
support of the above-noted rejection. Attention is directed to
appellant’s brief (Paper No. 10, filed October 15, 2001) for a
full exposition of the arguments thereagainst.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007