Appeal 2007-0008
Application 09/818,023
Seufert ‘916 addresses the problems of extending a fold or bend line across
overlap regions (i.e., regions of different thickness) by, prior to gluing the
foil blank to the cardboard blank, forming a thinned-down area in the extra
ply in the region where the bend line crosses the overlap region, the thinned-
down area being wider than the bend line (Findings of Fact 5 and 6).
Therefore, “[including] the teachings of Seufert [‘916] in the invention of
Campbell” would appear to involve inserting between the plies of
Campbell’s board lines of reinforcing tape having thinned-down areas in the
regions where bend or fold lines will cross the lines of reinforcement.
Missing from the combination of Campbell and Seufert ‘916 is a teaching of
scoring the fold lines across the reinforced region 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, as recited in claim 1, or impressing the
paperboard carton blank with a multi-point rule having a narrower first
section for scoring the portion of the fold line outside the reinforced region
and a wider second section for scoring the portion of the fold line within the
reinforced region, as recited in claim 11.
For the reasons explained above, we conclude that the Examiner erred
in concluding that the subject matter of claims 1 and 11 is unpatentable over
the combination of Campbell and Seufert ‘916. The rejection of
independent claims 1 and 11 and claims 2-5 and 7 depending from claim 1 is
reversed. The Examiner’s application of Seufert ‘206 and Haddock in
rejecting the remaining depending claims does not make up for the
deficiency in the combination of Campbell and Seufert. Accordingly, the
rejections of claim 6 as unpatentable over Campbell in view of Seufert ‘916
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013