Appeal No. 2006-1232
Application No. 09/761,500
package walls, “since it has been held that forming in one piece an article
which has formerly been formed in two pieces and put together involves
only routine skill in the art. Howard v. Detroit Stove Works, 150 U.S. 164
(1893)” (id.).
Appellants allege, without explanation, that the modification proposed
by the Examiner is not an obvious variation by way of forming in one piece
an article formerly formed in two pieces and put together (Br. 8).
Thomas discloses first and second panels 36, 38 “integrally formed”
with first and second body panels 12, 14, respectively, with lowermost strips
36a, 38a of the first and second upstanding panels 36, 38, respectively,
thermally bonded to an outer surface of the body panels 12, 14 (col. 3, ll. 32-
42).
Claims 1-4 do not require formation of the wall segments as one piece
with the first and second walls. Claim 1 merely requires at least one of the
walls and flange portions to form a wall segment beyond the attachment line
of said wall to its associated flange portion and claim 3 recites first and
second segments extending from the first and second walls. Thomas’ first
and second panels 36, 38 are integrally formed with and extend from the
first and second body panels 12, 14. This arrangement meets the limitation
in claim 1 that the wall (body panel 12 or 14) form a wall segment (panel 36
or 38) beyond the attachment line of the wall (body panel 12 or 14) to its
associated flange portion (flange 26 or 30) and the limitation in claim 3 that
the segments (panel 36 or 38) extend from the walls (body panel 12 or 14).
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013