Appeal 2006-2365
Application 10/209,736
review, we make the determinations that follow. It is our view that, after
consideration of the record before us, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejections.
KUCHENBECKER IN VIEW OF WATTS OR GIAMPAPA
AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF BATCHELOR
Claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuchenbecker in view of Watts or Giampapa and further in view
of Batchelor. Independent claims 1, 4, and 9 all require substantially triangular-
shaped corner tabs or panels having indicia on the upper surface of the corner
panels.
In the rejection of independent claims 1, 4, and 9, the examiner determined
that Kuchenbecker meets all of the claimed limitations except for indicia on the
upper surface of the triangular-shaped corner tabs. The examiner relied on either
Watts or Giampapa for the teaching that it is known in the art to provide indicia on
a container. The examiner found that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art to provide indicia on a container in Kuchenbecker, as
taught by Watts or Giampapa, to provide advertisement and/or to decorate the box.
Answer, p. 3. The examiner further relied on Batchelor to teach that it was known
in the art to make a container from corrugated material, and found that it would
have been obvious to make the container of Kuchenbecker from corrugated
material to provide added strength. Answer, pp. 3, 4.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013