Appeal No. 2004-1805
Application No. 09/928,359
said second panel and said third panel each
having a free edge,
said fifth panel adapted to overlap said first
panel to form a carton sideseam,
said fifth panel truncated at one end, and
a cut out in said free edge of said second panel,
said cut out extending into said second panel past a
line collinear [sic, colinear] with said free edge of
said third panel.
On page 2 of the brief, appellant states that claims 1-13
stand or fall together. We therefore consider claim 1 in this
appeal. 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) and (8)(2003).
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second
paragraph (indefiniteness).
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Yasui.
Claims 1-13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Derving.
The examiner relies upon the following references as
evidences of unpatentability:
Yasui et al (Yasui) 4,667,873 May 26, 1987
Derving 4,702,410 Oct. 27, 1987
OPINION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 112, Second Paragraph Rejection
(indefiniteness)
On page 3 of the answer, the examiner states that the term
“cut out”, recited in each of claims 1, 5, and 9, is indefinite.
The examiner also concludes that the phrase recited in claim 1
regarding “a line collinear [sic, colinear] with said free edge
of said third panel”, is indefinite.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007