Appeal 2006-2365
Application 10/209,736
Giampapa, and Batchelor, would not have been led to make the combination
recited in claims 1, 4, and 9. Claims 2 and 5-7 depend from and further limit
independent claims 1 and 4. As such, these dependent claims are also not rendered
unpatentable based on the prior art relied upon by the examiner. Accordingly, we
do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4-7, and 9 under 35 USC
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Kuchenbecker in view of Watts or Giampapa
and further in view of Batchelor.
KUCHENBECKER IN VIEW OF WATTS OR GIAMPAPA
AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF BATCHELOR AND WILEY
Claims 3, 8, and 92 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Kuchenbecker in view of Watts or Giampapa, further in view of
Batchelor, and further in view of Wiley. The examiner relied on Wiley only for its
teaching of using a fluorescent color on packaging materials. Answer, p. 4. Wiley
does not cure the deficiencies of the teachings of Kuchenbecker, Watts, Giampapa,
and Batchelor. Specifically, Wiley does not teach or suggest a blank or container
having substantially triangular-shaped panels with indicia on the upper surface.
Rather, the excerpt from Wiley relied upon by the examiner relates only to
colorants for packaging materials. As such, we do not sustain the examiner’s
rejection of claims 3, 8, and 9 under 35 USC § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Kuchenbecker in view of Watts or Giampapa and further in view of Batchelor and
Wiley.
2 We note that claim 11, not claim 9, requires that the indicia is either a fluorescent
or day-glow color.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013