Appeal 2007-2111
Application 09/921,204
1 Appellant further contends that Jenniches does not teach a
2 shipping/packaging carton but rather teaches a pack of cigarettes. Moreover,
3 Appellant contends (Br. 17) that none of the cited references are directed to
4 a shipping carton that advertises the products of the owner or sender of the
5 carton, as well as the products of another party.
6 Turning to claim 11, the Examiner's position (Final Rejection 4) is
7 that "the carton of Ford-Zimmerman-Jenniches discloses the claimed
8 invention by presentation." The Examiner explains (Answer 8) that
9 [A]ppellant questions the rejection based upon presentation. It
10 is respectfully asserted that the method of claim 1 is directed to
11 the provision of a final product. As such, when the method is
12 performed, it results in a final product or article. Accordingly,
13 when the method of Ford-Zimmerman-Jenniches is performed,
14 the article of claim 11 is met by presentation of the finished
15 method.
16
17 With respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
18 being unpatentable over Kapp in view of Zimmerman, the Examiner
19 contends (Final Rejection 4-5) that in view of Zimmerman's disclosure of
20 using corrugated cardboard material in the shipping/packaging art, it would
21 have been obvious to form the carton of Kapp from corrugated cardboard to
22 improve the container wall strength. The Examiner adds (Final Rejection 5)
23 that the printed matter in the claim is not functionally related to the substrate
24 and does not distinguish from the prior art. Appellant contends (Br. 19) that
25 Kapp does not disclose a shipping/packaging container, and that it would not
26 have been obvious to form the box of Kapp of corrugated cardboard because
27 Kapp's box is made of thin cardboard or reinforced paper. Appellant opines
28 that since card 22 is detachable from the remainder of the box, it would be
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013