Ex Parte Zoeckler - Page 8

                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