Appeal 2007-0008
Application 09/818,023
THE ISSUE
Appellant has not argued the rejections of 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
separately from the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, and 11 as unpatentable over
Campbell in view of Seufert ‘916. These rejections therefore stand or fall
with the rejection of claims 1-5, 7, and 11 as unpatentable over Campbell in
view of Seufert ‘916 (see In re Nielson, 816 F.2d 1567, 1572, 2 USPQ2d
1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1987)).
In light of the above, the only issue presented to us for consideration
is whether the Examiner erred in concluding that the subject matter of claims
1-5, 7, and 11 is unpatentable over the combination of Campbell and Seufert
‘916.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. Campbell discloses a method of reinforcing fiber board or corrugated
board for use in making shipping cases, cartons, or other folded
multiple-ply blanks (Campbell 1:1-5) by inserting lines of fabric or
other tape, or the like, between the plies of the web of the board from
which the blank is to be cut and scored. The lines of reinforcing
material coincide with the subsequent fold lines of the completed
carton. (Campbell 1:45-51.) As illustrated in Fig. 3, the plies of
paper and strips of tape are fed in web form from paper rolls 1-3 and
tape rolls 5, the paper webs are coated with silicate in bath 4, the tapes
are covered with a slow drying cement by passing them through a tank
5a and squeeze rolls 5b, and the plies of paper and tapes are then fed
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013