Appeal No. 2000-2039
Application 09/176,608
effort required to initially open the recloseable [sic]
box of Gorton is significantly more than the effort
involved in opening the cigarette pack of the present
invention, and the added effort is totally unnecessary.
Additionally, more opportunity exists in the Gorton
construction for mishaps to occur since separation must
be accomplished at 8 or 9 locations along each cut line
whereas only one such separation is required with the
cigarette pack of the present invention. Lastly,
breaking a single uncut portion requires substantially
less time when compared to 8 or 9 uncut portions [main
brief, pages 5 and 6].
Thus, the only alleged difference between the subject matter
recited in claim 1 and the prior art which is argued by the
appellants lies in the claim recitation that each cut line
includes a single uncut portion about midway along its length.
The open-ended nature of claim 1 and the particular claim
language involved support the examiner’s interpretation that the
recitation of the “single” uncut portion does not exclude each
cut line from having other uncut portions, e.g., at points other
than about midway along their lengths. Inasmuch as each of
Gorton’s lines of perforations 36, 36a undoubtedly includes a
“single” uncut portion which is located about midway along its
length, this reference, taken alone or in combination with the
admitted prior art, would have suggested a box blank meeting the
claim limitation at issue.
Moreover, even if claim 1 were limited to a box blank having
only one uncut portion in each diagonal cut line, it is well
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007