Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525
1 No such issues are present in this case. The drawing need not be
2 scaled or exactly measured. One of ordinary skill in the art, having regard
3 for the drawing of Thiolat, would have recognized that virtually all (almost
4 100%, well above 85%) of the opening is covered by one pair of closures.
5 The Appellant has not shown otherwise, and accordingly this rejection is
6 affirmed as it pertains to claims 9 and 11.
7 The appellant discusses claim 13 separately.
8 Claim 13 reads as follows:
9 13. The article of claim 11 wherein the panels are defined by
10 score lines.
11
12 Claim 11, from which claim 13 depends, reads as follows:
13 11. An article comprising:
14 a unitary paperboard blank defining a bottom panel;
15 a first pair of opposing side panels extending from the bottom
16 panel;
17 a second pair of opposing side panels extending from the
18 bottom panel;
19 a plurality of foldable gussets, each gusset connecting two
20 adjacent side panels;
21 a first pair of opposing closure panels extending from the first
22 pair of opposing side panels and each closure panel having an
23 opposing hook closure device; and
24 a second pair of opposing closure panels extending from the
25 second pair of opposing side panels,
26 wherein an area of either pair of opposing closure panels exceed
27 85% of an area of an opening defined by edges of the pairs of
28 opposing side panels distal to the bottom panel.
29
30 The Appellant urges that claim 13 is separately patentable because it
31 includes the additional element of “panels defined by score lines” (Br. p. 20,
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013