Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525
1 Claims 9, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
2 anticipated by Thiolat.
3 The Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not
4 anticipated and would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary
5 skill in the art. More specifically, the Appellant contends that the combined
6 references disclosures would not have taught or suggested the claimed
7 element of closing the closure flaps in an arbitrary order. (Br. p. 9, ll. 12-
8 14). The Appellant also urges that the references cannot properly be
9 combined because the Examiner has failed to establish an adequate reason to
10 combine (Br. p. 9., ll. 16-18). The Appellant urges that claims 9, 11, and 13
11 are not anticipated by Thiolat.
12 We AFFIRM.
13 FINDINGS OF FACT
14 DeMay
15 1. DeMay describes a reclosable food tray and tray blank. (DeMay,
16 col. 1, ll. 10-15).
17 2. DeMay Figure 1 is a planar view of a blank for assembling a food
18 container, and is reproduced below (slightly reduced).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013