Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525
1 Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1341, 60 USPQ2d 1851,
2 1854 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, terms in a patent claim are given their
3 plain, ordinary, and accustomed meaning to one of ordinary skill in the
4 relevant art. (Id.). Thiolat forms its blanks with score lines (Thiolat, col. 1,
5 ll. 36-40), and the Appellant has not shown how its score lines are different.
6 Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this argument and shall affirm
7 this rejection as it pertains to claim 13.
8 ii) The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-11 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C.
9 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeMay and Collins.
10 The Examiner has found that DeMay describes a container with a
11 bottom panel, first side panels 6, 7, second side panels 7, 8 and gussets. The
12 Examiner has found that DeMay teaches all of the claimed elements except
13 for hook devices. The Examiner additionally found Collins teaches that it
14 was known in the art to provide hook devices on all closure panels.
15 The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
16 ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide
17 Collins’ hook devices in DeMay for better panel securing. Alternatively, the
18 Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to employ the gussets
19 of DeMay in the box of Collins to prevent leaking. (Answer, p. 3, ll. 11-18).
20 The Appellant first urges that the examiner “fails to indicate where
21 within DeMay, or Collins for that matter, the element of closing the closure
22 flaps in an arbitrary order is taught or suggested.” (Br. p. 9, ll. 12-14).
23 First, the claim does not read “closed and secured” in an arbitrary
24 order. We find that closed means shut. DeMay’s closures may be closed in
25 an arbitrary order, even if not secured.
13
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013