Appeal 2007-2111
Application 09/921,204
1 whole obvious in terms of 35 U.S.C. § 103.” We do not consider three
2 references to be a large number of applied references.
3 From all of the above, we hold that the combined teachings and
4 suggestions of Ford, Zimmerman, and Jenniches would have suggested to an
5 artisan the subject matterof claim 1, for the reasons advanced by the
6 Examiner and amplified by our comments, supra.
7 We turn next to claim 11. At the outset, we make reference to our
8 findings, supra, with respect to the teachings and suggestions of Ford,
9 Zimmerman, and Jenniches. We note the assertion of the Examiner (Answer
10 8) to the effect that upon carrying out the method of the applied prior art, as
11 advanced in the rejection of claim 1, the article of claim 11 results from the
12 method. Appellant asserts (Br. 18) that "the carton of Ford-Zimmerman-
13 Jenniches does not disclose the claim 11 invention based on the arguments
14 set forth above by [A]ppellant with respect to claim 1.” Accordingly, we
15 hold that the combined teachings and suggestions of Ford, Zimmerman, and
16 Jenniches would have suggested to an artisan the limitations of claim 11 for
17 the same reasons as we found claim 1 to be met by the applied prior art.
18 We turn next to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
19 being unpatentable over Kapp in view of Zimmerman. The Examiner's
20 position can be found on pages 4-6 of the Final Rejection. From our review
21 of Kapp, we find that Kapp describes a box having a product inside (fact
22 23). We further find that Kapp describes the box as being made from
23 cardboard (fact 21). From the fact that the product is inside the box, we find
24 the box to be a package containing the product. Since the box is capable of
25 being shipped we find the box of Kapp to be a shipping/packaging carton.
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013