Appeal 2007-2111
Application 09/921,204
1 From the description of Zimmerman that a shipping/packaging carton (fact
2 10) can be made of corrugated cardboard (fact 12), we find that an artisan
3 would have considered it obvious to have formed the box of Kapp out of
4 cardboard. In addition, we find that Kapp describes plural advertisements on
5 the exposed surfaces of the box (fact 22). Thus, we agree with the
6 Examiner (Final Rejection 5) that the claim differs from the combination of
7 Kapp and Zimmerman only by the specific arrangement and/or content of
8 the indicia (advertisements). We add that the claim also recites that the first
9 advertisement is for a product of a party owning the carton, and that the
10 second advertisement is of a second party whose product is not in the carton.
11 The claim additionally recites that both advertisements are printed on the
12 carton and that the second advertisement is in an area that would otherwise
13 be void of advertising. Moreover, the claim recites that the second
14 advertisement area is allotted by the first party, and that the first party does
15 not buy the second party's advertisement. The claim additionally recites that
16 the first party determines the size and location of the second advertisement,
17 and that the size of the second advertisement is determined, at least in part,
18 by the size of the carton.
19 From our consideration of the claim as a whole, we agree with the
20 Examiner (Final Rejection 5) that because the printed matter is not
21 functionally related to the substrate (carton), the printed matter, based upon
22 the specific facts of this case, does not patentably distinguish the claimed
23 invention from the prior art. In our view, the size, location, and ownership
24 of the advertisements would have been obvious to an artisan as predictable
25 results of familiar elements according to known methods, as advanced by the
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013