Appeal No. 2005-1486
Application No. 10/099,423 8
requiring the display box to have a reinforced top product-
restraining rail and a removable panel portion defining a product
viewing window. Although neither reference mentions a reinforced
top product-restraining rail, such would necessarily result from
the inclusion of a removable panel portion as in Kim in one of
the double ply side walls of Welshenbach’s inner box A.
Hence, the combined teachings of Welshenbach and Kim justify
the examiner’s conclusion that the differences between the
subject matter recited in claim 1 and the prior art are such that
the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time
the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the
art. The examiner’s application of Krizan against claim 1 is, at
worst, superfluous.
Accordingly, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 1 and claims 2 through 15 which stand
or fall therewith.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 15
is affirmed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007