Appeal No. 2005-1318 Page 9
Application No. 10/191,198
the rim 314 of the base section 312 and sealed with an adhesive to form the reinforced
rim 318, as seen in Figure 3D.
Rejection 1
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 6 to 9 and 14 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Schneider in view of Galomb.
In the rejection (answer, p. 3), the examiner concluded that "[i]t would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use in the Scneider [sic, Schneider] package
the same materials for both the wall and base as taught by Galomb to have a more
efficient and inexpensive packaging operation." We do not agree.
In our view, the teachings of Galomb would not have provided any motivation,
suggestion or incentive for a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have modified Schneider so as to arrive at the claimed subject
matter. Schneider specifically teaches that his package comprising a rigid base
member 11 and an upper tubular portion 12 made from a thin flexible film. As such, to
have modified Schneider's rigid base member 11 to be made from a thin flexible film
goes against the explicit teachings of Schneider. Furthermore, Galomb provides no
rationale for an artisan to go against the explicit teachings of Schneider that the base of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007