Appeal 2007-2897
Application 09/934,777
Thus, we are not persuaded by Appellant's arguments and the rejection of
claims 6-8 and 17-20 is affirmed.
Claims 9, 13-16, and 21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a), for
obviousness over Kitagawa in view of Plummer and Williams. We select claim 9
as representative of this rejection as Appellant has not provided separate argument
for other claims. 37 C.F.R. 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary
skill in the art at the time this invention was made to construct [a]
process for packing a box taught by Kitagawa with a plurality of
different tapes having different symbols and/or colors to provide a
means to selectively code each box. In addition, it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time this
invention was made to construct the taped box by Kitagawa and
Plummer with preprinted indicia as taught by Williams to provide
indicia related to the destination of the box after it's packed.
(Answer 8-9.)
Appellant argues that neither Kitigawa, Plummer, nor Williams teaches
utilizing adhesive tape having indicia pre-printed thereon indicating a single room
or location. (Br. 16-17.) Appellant argues that "labeling boxes having numeric
indicia or symbols, even if color coded, does not give rise to the claimed
invention." (Br. 17.)
As discussed herein, we find Plummer teaches it was known in the art to
produce a colored tape and repeated indicia which may be letters. (Plummer, col.
3, ll. 59-63.) Williams teaches it was known in the art to pre-print an address or
designation on tape. (Williams, col. 2, ll. 23-31, col. 3, ll. 33-36.) Williams
further teaches that because each carton may require a different message, the
- 10 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013