Appeal 2007-2111
Application 09/921,204
1 We begin with the rejection of claims 1 and 11 under 35 U.S.C.
2 § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Ford in view of Zimmerman and
3 Jenniches. We turn first to claim 1.
4 The Examiner contends that the shipping/packaging carton of Ford is
5 not made of corrugated cardboard. To overcome this deficiency of Ford, the
6 Examiner turns to Zimmerman for a teaching that corrugated cardboard was
7 a known material in the shipping/packaging art. (Final Rejection 2.) The
8 Examiner additionally asserts (Final Rejection 3) that the Ford-Zimmerman
9 combination lacks or does not expressly disclose the provision of a second
10 advertisement. The Examiner (id.) turns to Jenniches for a teaching of
11 providing the carton of Ford-Zimmerman with a second advertisement for a
12 second product of a second party separate and distinct from said first party.
13 The Examiner adds that it would have been obvious to print the
14 advertisements simultaneously in order to reduce the number of
15 manufacturing steps.
16 Appellant contends (Br. 13) that Ford does not disclose a
17 shipping/packing carton, nor a shipping/packaging carton as alleged by the
18 Examiner. Appellant additionally contends that Ford does not disclose a
19 shipping/packaging carton having an advertisement printed on the outer
20 carton surface, because Ford does not disclose an advertisement (Br. 13-14).
21 Appellant additionally contends that it would not have been obvious to form
22 the carton of Ford from corrugated cardboard in order to improve container
23 wall strength. Appellant additionally argues (Br. 15) that the combination
24 of Ford and Zimmerman fails to disclose, either expressly or impliedly, a
25 first advertisement and a second advertisement.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013