Appeal No. 2003-0221
Application 09/670,929
in Teasdale for holding articles, and that it would have been
obvious to select an appropriate material, such as corrugated
board, to make the container of Teasdale. Accordingly, we share
the examiner’s view concerning claims 5 and 6, finding that
appellant has failed to seasonably challenge the examiner’s
position regarding the rejection of claims 5 and 6, and that the
facts Officially Noticed are now taken to be admitted prior art.
Moreover, we note that the carry-out carton or container seen in
Figure 7 of Teasdale appears to include support panels (34)
having or defining two rows of openings and that the container of
Teasdale is specifically indicated to be formed of “heavier
weight paperboard” (col. 2, lines 5-6) suitable for forming bulk
goods cartons. Thus, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
The last rejection for our review is that of claims 12
through 14 and 16 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable
over Schuster in view Marquez. In this instance, it appears to
be the examiner’s position with regard to method claims 12
through 14 and 16 that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellant’s invention,
based on the gift wrapping storage container of Marquez, to store
12
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007