Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525
1 not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
2 experimentation.”).
3 DeMay suggests that the panels be “dimensioned to close off a portion
4 off access opening 3” (DeMay, col. 7, ll. 38-42). Selecting appropriate-
5 sized panels to close off openings is within the ordinary skill of one skilled
6 in the art.
7 We shall affirm this rejection as it applies to claim 9.
8 The Appellant has again discussed claim 13 separately.
9 The Appellant again urges that claim 13 is “separately patentable
10 because it includes the additional element of panels defined by score lines”
11 (Br. p. 16, ll. 13-14). The Appellant again urges that “score lines” are to be
12 defined as “partially penetrating the card stock material.” (Id., ll. 15-16).
13 We observe that the Appellant has not expressly defined “score lines”
14 in a way which would remove the fold lines of the references. The
15 Examiner has found them to be equivalent, and the Appellant has not put in
16 any evidence that they are not functionally or structurally the same. DeMay
17 expressly notes that food cartons are pre-cut and pre-scored (DeMay, col. 1,
18 ll. 36-38). As noted above, claims are given their broadest reasonable
19 interpretation during prosecution. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this
20 argument and shall affirm this rejection as it pertains to claim 13.
21 iii) The rejection of claims 9, 11, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
22 as being unpatentable over DeMay and Collins, further in view of Thiolat.
23 The Examiner has found that Thiolat teaches that the container can
24 have four flaps F, F2, D, and D1 with securing means of hooks G and G1.
25 (Thiolat, col. 2, ll. 28-30). All flaps may be provided with lugs G, G1
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013