Appeal No. 2006-2895 Page 10
Application No. 09/971,469
when considered alone or in combination, teach or suggest the claimed step of
“cutting the attached carton sheet and the associated reinforcing material to form
carton blanks.”
The remaining prior art references relied upon by the examiner do not cure
the deficiencies of Anderson and Walsh. In particular, Goldsborough discloses a
printing station that is used as part of a box forming system (10). The system (10)
of Goldsborough merely prints information on the carton blank (24) prior to the
blank entering the die cutter station (18). Goldsborough, col. 3, lines 14-25.
Goldsborough does not teach or suggest a system in which a strip of reinforcing
material is adhered to a carton sheet prior to cutting the reinforcing strip and carton
sheet to form carton blanks, as required by claim 1. Mitchard discloses a method
for applying a liner to a carton blank, in which the method commences with a pre-
cut blank (10). Mitchard, Figure 1, col. 4, lines 12-16. A liner (11) is aligned with
the blank (1) and then adhered to the blank (10). Mitchard, col. 6, lines 2-6 and
36-46. There is no disclosure in Mitchard as to whether the liner is cut. As such,
these prior art references do not render the method of claim 1 obvious.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Anderson taken alone or in combination with
Walsh.
The rejections of the remaining dependent claims 2-12 rely upon the
underlying rejection of independent claim 1. For the reasons provided supra, we
also do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of these claims. See In re Fine, 837
F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (If an independent claim is
nonobvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, then any claim dependent therefrom is
nonobvious).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007