Appeal 2007-0008
Application 09/818,023
‘916 and illustrated in Figs. 2, 3, and 4 of Seufert ‘916. Seufert ‘206
illustrates an embodiment wherein the rule-shaped tool 20 is carried in
a holding plate 19 connected to a work cylinder 11 (Seufert, col. 5,
ll. 28-30 and 43-45).
8. Haddock evidences that a slot or channel 16 in the make ready 14
(i.e., counter plate) on a platen 10 used in conjunction with a rule 20
for forming creases for bending in carton blanks was known in the art
at the time of Appellant’s invention (Haddock, col. 3, ll. 13-18,
Fig. 1).
9. It was known by those of skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s
invention that fold lines in thinner material must be narrower than fold
lines in thicker material (Specification 36:24-26).
ANALYSIS
In rejecting claims 1-5, 7, and 11 as unpatentable over Campbell in
view of Seufert ‘916, the Examiner contends it would have been obvious “to
include the teachings of Seufert [‘916] in the invention of Campbell in order
to compensate stresses in the laminate materials when folded into the final
product and thereby maintaining the bond between the laminates” (Answer
4), but does not specify how the invention of Campbell would be modified
by including the teachings of Seufert ‘916 therein. We conclude that
combination of Campbell and Seufert ‘916, without more, would not result
in the method of Appellant’s independent claims 1 and 11. Campbell’s
reinforcing method involves forming fold lines extending transversely of
lines of reinforcement, which lines of reinforcement include an extra layer of
material relative to the other regions of the blank (Findings of Fact 1 and 3).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013