Appeal No. 2004-1240
Application No. 09/742,691
II. The rejection of claim 3 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in
view of AAPA in view of Budny
On page 11 of the brief, appellant refers to his
same arguments used in the above-discussed rejection
of claim 1 of Section I of this decision, to address
this rejection. Therefore, for the very same reasons
that we affirmed the above-mentioned obviousness
rejection, we affirm this rejection.
III. The rejection of claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being obvious over AAPA in view of Fischer
In the rejection of claim 4, the examiner relies
upon Fischer for teaching the subject matter of claim
4. We address appellant’s specific comments on
Fischer on pages 11-12 of the brief. Here, appellant
argues the particular limitation of claim 4 regarding
“wherein said container has an insert for placing a
lid of said container” is not suggested by Fischer.
Brief, pages 11-12.
At the bottom of page 11 and at the top of page
12 of the brief, appellant argues that item 68 of
Fischer is not an insert, nor does it form an insert
for the lid. Appellant states that the opening, 69,
formed by flap 68 is for the sheet material to be
dispensed, not the lid to be placed. On page 16 of
the answer, the examiner agrees that item 68 of
Fischer is not an insert.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007