Appeal 2007-0008
Application 09/818,023
material to define a fold line having a first section
within the reinforced region and a second section
outside the reinforced region, the first section of
the fold line being wider than the second section of
the fold line; and
(d) forming a transition zone between the
first and second sections of the fold line.
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence of
unpatentability:
Campbell US 1,600,396 Sep. 21, 1926
Haddock US 3,735,674 May 29, 1973
Seufert (Seufert ‘206) US 4,064,206 Dec. 20, 1977
Seufert (Seufert ‘916) US 4,733,916 Mar. 29, 1988
This panel additionally relies on the admission in Appellant’s
Specification that it was known by those of skill in the art that “fold lines in
thinner material must be narrower than fold lines in thicker material”
(Specification 36:24-26) as additional evidence of unpatentability.
Appellant seeks review of the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 1-5, 7, and 11 as unpatentable over Campbell in view of
Seufert ‘916, claim 6 as unpatentable over Campbell in view of Seufert ‘916
and Seufert ‘206, and claims 8-10 and 12-15 as unpatentable over Campbell
in view of Seufert ‘916 and Haddock.
The Examiner provides reasoning in support of the rejections in the
Answer (mailed December 1, 2003). Appellant presents opposing
arguments in the Appeal Brief (filed September 16, 2003) . A Reply Brief
filed March 16, 2004 was denied entry (see Decision on Petition mailed
August 10, 2006 and Office Communication mailed September 13, 2006)
and will not be considered in our decision.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013