Appeal No. 2002-1147 Page 7
Application No. 09/305,799
In our view, the teachings of Smitherman provide no teaching, suggestion,
incentive or motivation for a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention
was made to have modified Jenkins' adhesive line 46 (which extends across both minor
flaps 28 and 30 from side panel 16 to side panel 18 as shown in Figures 2 and 5) to be
substantially confined to the corner portions as set forth in independent claims 1, 9, 10
and 15. Smitherman teaches to prevent material from leaking about the corners of his
container 24 by using a double portion of adhesive 18 at the contact area between the
outside portions 32 of the minor end flaps 22 and the major inside end flap 20, which
double portion of adhesive 18 does not extend across both minor end flaps 22 as
shown in Figure 1. Smitherman does not teach one skilled in that art that the double
portion of adhesive 18 at the contact area between the outside portions 32 of the minor
end flaps 22 and the major inside end flap 20 is substantially confined to the corner
portions as set forth in independent claims 1, 9, 10 and 15. Therefore, Smitherman
does not provide any teaching, suggestion, incentive or motivation whatsoever for an
artisan to have modified Jenkins to arrive at the claimed subject matter.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 1,
2 and 5 to 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007