Appeal No. 2006-1371
Application No. 10/323,250
Evers or Chacko, each containing multiple packs, to the tray
support surface of Carnes’ dispensing system” (brief, pages 7-8).
The packages of Evers (fig. 4) and Chacko (fig. 13), like
those of the appellants (fig. 1), have a plurality of individual
packs inside an enclosure. Carnes’ package differs in that the
individual packs are secured to a tray (fig. 1) rather than being
within an enclosure. However, Carnes’ technique of adhesively
securing part of each individual pack’s wrapper such that when a
pack is removed, the wrapper severs along a tear line, thereby
automatically opening the pack for quick access (col. 1, lines
57-64; col. 3, lines 12-15), would have been perceived by one of
ordinary skill in the art as being independent of the shape of
the substrate to which the individual pack’s wrapper is adhered.
Hence, Carnes would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary
skill in the art, adhesively securing part of the wrappers of the
individual packs of Evers and Chacko to the substrate which they
contact, i.e., the enclosure, to obtain the benefit of the quick
access disclosed by Carnes.
Therefore, we are not convinced of reversible error in the
examiner’s rejections over Evers or Chacko, in view of Carnes.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007