Appeal 2006-3391
Application 10/371,485
Adams US 5,425,218 Jun. 20, 1995
Samida US 6,123,792 Sep. 26, 2000
Appellants seek review of the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 7, 13-17 and 28 as unpatentable over Adams, claims 11
and 12 as unpatentable over Adams in view of Samida and claim 27 as
unpatentable over Adams in view of Moore.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejection in the
Answer (mailed December 8, 2005). Appellants present opposing
arguments in the Appeal Brief (filed November 17, 2005).
ISSUES
Appellants contend claims 7, 13-17 and 28 are not unpatentable over
Adams because, in the process of Adams, side flaps are folded over opposite
sides of packaging stock that has a heat reactivated adhesive, not a
reactivatable adhesive, present thereon (Br. 3) and because the carton of
Adams is not formed before it is filled (Br. 3-4). Appellants do not argue
any of the dependent claims separately from independent claim 7 and do not
argue the rejections of claims 11 and 12 as unpatentable over Adams in view
of Samida and claim 27 as unpatentable over Adams in view of Moore
separately from the rejection of claim 7 as unpatentable over Adams. We
therefore focus our attention on claim 7, with the remainder of the claims
standing or falling with claim 7.
In light of Appellants' contentions, this appeal presents two issues for
our consideration. The first issue is whether Adams meets the limitation of
claim 7 of "said packaging material having applied to at least a first portion
thereof a reactivatable adhesive, contacting the adhesive present on said first
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013