Appeal No. 2003-0221
Application 09/670,929
examiner’s broad reading of the means clause in claim 15. The
fact that appellant then sets forth “one preferred embodiment”
utilizing an adhesive strip that enables the attaching edge (28)
to be secured to the upper edge of the opposed side (12) of the
container does nothing to change our view that the means clause
of claim 15 should be broadly construed. Moreover, we note that
in column 6, lines 3-11, Schuster indicates that the strips (26)
and (48) could be “glued together instead of being mechanically
interlocked,” or that both a mechanical locking arrangement and
glue could be employed together.
As a result of the foregoing, we find appellant’s arguments
unpersuasive of error on the examiner’s part and will sustain the
examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as being anticipated by Schuster.
Regarding the examiner’s rejection of claims 4 through 6
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Teasdale in
view of Official Notice, we share appellant’s view as set forth
on page 12 of the brief, that appellant seasonably challenged the
examiner’s position on Official Notice with respect to use of an
adhesive strip in the particular manner required in claim 4 on
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007