Appeal No. 2002-1147 Page 6
Application No. 09/305,799
of obviousness. Therefore, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1, 2 and 6 to
15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Obviousness rejection based on Jenkins and Smitherman
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1, 2 and 5 to 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Jenkins in view of Smitherman.
In this rejection, the examiner ascertained (brief, p. 6) that
Jenkins meets all claimed limitations except for: (1) the adhesive at
portions 46 and 48 being confined to the corner portions of the minor flaps
extending partially toward the opposed edges and the minor flaps as set forth in
claims 1, 9 and 10, (2) the adhesive portion at 70 is confined to the corners of
the first major flap 24 as set forth in claims 8, 9, and 10, and (3) the inner
opposed edges of the first and second [minor] flaps being spaced at a
substantial distance apart as set forth in claim 5.[5]
The examiner then concluded that such differences would have been obvious to a
person of ordinary skill in the art from the teachings of Smitherman.
The appellant argues that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree.
5 Once again the examiner did not ascertain the differences between Jenkins and independent
claim 15.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007