Appeal No. 2002-1099 2
Application No. 09/208,119
torn open. Specifically, the container is configured such that the spine connecting the
container base to the container lid does not extent beyond the sidewall of the base when
the lid is closed such that there is no exposed portion of the spine that can be grasped for
forcibly tearing open the container. A further understanding of the invention can be
derived from a reading of claims 18, 25 and 30, the independent claims on appeal, which
appear in Appendix A to appellants’ main brief.
The references relied upon by the examiner in the final rejection are:
Hehn 4,184,594 Jan. 22, 1980
Hagiwara et al (Hagiwara) 4,593,814 June 10, 1986
Koizumi 5,690,224 Nov. 25, 1997
Nakasuji 5,823,341 Oct. 20, 1998
The following rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) are before us for review:1
(1) claims 18, 19, 24, 30, 31, 33 and 35, rejected as being unpatentable over Hehn
in view of Koizumi and Nakasuji;
(2) claims 20-23, 25-27, 29 and 34, rejected as being unpatentable over Hehn in
view of Koizumi and Nakasuji, and further in view of Hagiwara; and
(3) claims 18-23, 25-27, 29, 33 and 34, rejected as being unpatentable over
Hagiwara in view of Koizumi and Nakasuji.
1The examiner’s answer also inadvertently listed canceled claim 32 among the
claims rejected in rejection (1).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007