Ex Parte Roseth

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 18, 2007

10392525 (B.P.A.I. May. 18, 2007)

The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was not written 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
for publication and is not binding precedent of the Board

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________________

Ex parte ROSETH STEVEN H.
____________________

Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Decided: May 18, 2007
____________________

Before TEDDY S. GRON, JAMESON LEE, and JAMES T. MOORE,
Administrative Patent Judges.

MOORE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF CASE
The Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 (2002) from a final
rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-11, and 13-15. We have jurisdiction under 35
U.S.C. § 6(b) (2002).
The Appellant claims a reclosable food container which is made from
a single blank. A representative independent claim under appeal reads as
follows:
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
1. A reclosable food container assembled from a unitary blank,
the container comprising:
a bottom panel;
a first pair of opposing side panels extending from the
bottom panel;
a second pair of opposing side panels extending from the
bottom panel;
a plurality of foldable gussets; each gusset connecting
two adjacent side panels;
a first pair of opposing closure panels extending from the
first pair of opposing side panels and each closure panel having
an opposing hook closure device; and
a second pair of opposing closure panels extending from
the second pair of opposing side panels and each closure panel
having an opposing hook closure device,
wherein the pairs of closure panels may be closed in an
arbitrary order.

The Examiner has rejected claims 1, 5, 7-11, and 13-15 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004).
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
appeal is:
Collins US 2,562,261 Jul. 31, 1951
Thiolat US 3,012,705 Dec. 12, 1961
DeMay US 5,411,204 May 02, 1995

The rejections under review in this appeal are as follow:
Claims 1, 5, 7-11, and 13-15 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over the combined teachings of DeMay and Collins.
Claims 9, 11, and 13-14 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over the combined teachings of DeMay and Collins,
further in view of Thiolat.
2
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
Claims 9, 11, and 13 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Thiolat.
The Appellant contends that the claimed subject matter is not
anticipated and would not have been obvious to a person having ordinary
skill in the art. More specifically, the Appellant contends that the combined
references disclosures would not have taught or suggested the claimed
element of closing the closure flaps in an arbitrary order. (Br. p. 9, ll. 12-
14). The Appellant also urges that the references cannot properly be
combined because the Examiner has failed to establish an adequate reason to
combine (Br. p. 9., ll. 16-18). The Appellant urges that claims 9, 11, and 13
are not anticipated by Thiolat.
We AFFIRM.
FINDINGS OF FACT
DeMay
1. DeMay describes a reclosable food tray and tray blank. (DeMay,
col. 1, ll. 10-15).
2. DeMay Figure 1 is a planar view of a blank for assembling a food
container, and is reproduced below (slightly reduced).
3
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
3. DeMay Figure 8 is a perspective view of an assembled food
container made from the blank of Figure 1, and is reproduced below (slightly
reduced).
5
6
7
8

4. DeMay Figure 1 illustrates a unitary blank for a reclosable food
container. (DeMay, col. 3, ll. 62-63).
4
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
5. DeMay Figure 8 illustrates a reclosable food container made from
the blank of Figure 1. (DeMay, col. 4, ll. 15-18).
6. DeMay’s blank of Figure 1 has a bottom panel 4 (DeMay, col. 4, ll.
41.)
7. DeMay’s blank of Figure 1 has a first pair of opposing side panels
7, 8 extending from the bottom panel 4. (DeMay, col. 4, ll. 41-48).
8. DeMay’s blank of figure 1 has a second pair of opposing side
panels 5, 6 extending from the bottom panel 4. (DeMay, col 4, ll. 41-48).
9. DeMay’s blank of Figure 1 has a plurality of foldable gussets (9,
10, 11, 12) each connecting two adjacent side panels (5, 6, 7, 8) (DeMay,
col. 4, ll. 45-48)
10. DeMay’s food container of Figure 8 illustrates a first pair of
opposing closure panels (17, 18) extending from the first pair of opposing
side panels (7, 8).
11. DeMay’s blank of Figure 1 and food container of Figure 8 have
one hook closure 19 on closure panel 17.
Collins
12. Collins describes a paperboard container with releasably
fastenable overlapping closure flaps. (Collins, col. 1, ll. 1-5).
13. Collins describes an interlocking closure flap which is
“inexpensive to form, which is easy to fasten and unfasten, and which will
hold securely upon being fastened” (Collins, col. 1., ll. 6-10).
14. Collins Figure 1 is reproduced below (slightly reduced):
5
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3

15. Collins Figures 2 and 3 are reproduced below (slightly reduced):
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
16. Collins describes flap-forming extensions 13 having a notch 17 at
the end of a tab formation 19. (Collins, col. 2, ll. 1-11).
17. Collins describes that the flaps are held interlocked against
movement and the folder is securely fastened together (Collins, col. 2, ll. 35-
46).
18. Collins’s flaps all have a locking notch at the end. (Fig. 2)

6
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
Thiolat
19. Thiolat describes a foldable box of square or rectangular shape
(Thiolat, col. 1., ll. 8-9).
20. Thiolat Figure 4 is reproduced below (slightly reduced):
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14

21. Thiolat teaches replacing the E, E1 closures of flaps D and D1
(the handle) (Thiolat, col. 2, ll. 18-21) with the lug closures of flaps F, F1.
22. Thiolat is formed from a cardboard or other suitable material
blank which is formed by score lines. (Thiolat, col. 1, ll. 36-40).
23. Thiolat’s container has a bottom, side walls, and covers attached
to the sidewalls. (Thiolat, col 1., ll. 39-46).
24. Thiolat’s container has extensions L, M which serve as gussets.
(Fig 1).
7
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
25. Thiolat’s Fig. 1 which represents a plan view of a blank for
assembling into Thiolat’s foldable container, is reproduced below (slightly
reduced):
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19

ANALYSIS
We first address the anticipation rejection over Thiolat.
i) The rejection of claims 9, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Thiolat.
Claim 9 reads as follows:
9. A reclosable food container assembled from a unitary blank, the
container comprising:
a bottom panel;
a first pair of opposing side panels extending from the
bottom panel;
a second pair of opposing side panels extending from the
bottom panel;
a plurality of foldable gussets; each gusset connecting
two adjacent side panels;
8
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
a first pair of opposing closure panels extending from the
first pair of opposing side panels and each closure panel having
an opposing hook closure device; and
a second pair of opposing closure panels extending from
the second pair of opposing side panels and each closure panel
having an opposing closure device,
wherein an area of either pair of opposing closure panels
exceed 85% of an area of an opening defined by edges of the
pairs of opposing side panels distal to the bottom panel.

The Examiner has found that Thiolat describes a blank having a
bottom panel, opposing first and second side panels, opposed first closure
panel having a hook closure device G, and an opposed second closure
having a closure device. The Examiner has additionally found that coverage
would be about 100% of the opening when portions G are mated or portion I
inserted into portion K. (Answer, p. 5, ll. 11-15).
The Appellant urges that Thiolat fails to teach or suggest that either
pair of opposing closure panels exceed 85% of the opening. (Br. p. 20, ll. 9-
11). This argument is premised on Appellant’s belief that Thiolat’s
drawings are not to scale. Appellant also notes that Thiolat is silent on
dimensions. Arguments based on drawing measurements are said to be of
little value. Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F. 3d 951,
956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1490 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
The flaw in this argument is that the Examiner’s position is not based
on drawing measurement. Figures 3 and 4 of Thiolat show Flaps F and F1
which have a hook-type securing device at the end. To function, they must
meet in the middle. Given that they are the same width dimension as the
bottom, and the constructed box is formed with right angles, one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was made would have recognized
9
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
that the entire top of the box is closed with the exception of slight corner
cutaways. This is not based on specific measurement, but one’s view of the
structure of the box.
Secondly, Hockerson involved a district court claim construction in an
infringement litigation where the district court had occasion to determine the
scope of a claim of an asserted patent. During prosecution of the underlying
application, the applicant-plaintiff-appellant disavowed footwear having a
groove width greater than that disclosed in the prior art. The district court
then interpreted the claim narrowly, and entered judgment of non-
infringement. On appeal, the applicant-plaintiff-appellant urged that the
district court erred in narrowly interpreting the claims in view of drawings in
the specification depicting a groove that is wider than the fins. The Federal
Circuit noted that patent drawings do not define the “precise proportions” of
the elements and may not be relied on to show “particular sizes” if the
specification is completely silent on the issue.
Hockerson cites to older precedent - In re Wright , 569 F.2d 1124,
1127, 193 USPQ 332, 335 (CCPA 1977) and In re Olson , 212 F.2d 590,
592, 101 USPQ 401, 402 (CCPA 1954). In Wright, the solicitor actually
measured the drawing and urged that the drawings indicated a chime length
of roughly 1/2 to 1 inch for a whiskey barrel. In Olsen, an applicant was
relying on drawings to attempt to establish a spatial relationship as support
for matter introduced in to the claims for a hydraulic coupler. However, the
drawing could not be scaled off to show any sizes or distances that were
urged to be exactly equal (on the order of thousandths of an inch).
10
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
No such issues are present in this case. The drawing need not be
scaled or exactly measured. One of ordinary skill in the art, having regard
for the drawing of Thiolat, would have recognized that virtually all (almost
100%, well above 85%) of the opening is covered by one pair of closures.
The Appellant has not shown otherwise, and accordingly this rejection is
affirmed as it pertains to claims 9 and 11.
The appellant discusses claim 13 separately.
Claim 13 reads as follows:
13. The article of claim 11 wherein the panels are defined by
score lines.

Claim 11, from which claim 13 depends, reads as follows:
11. An article comprising:
a unitary paperboard blank defining a bottom panel;
a first pair of opposing side panels extending from the bottom
panel;
a second pair of opposing side panels extending from the
bottom panel;
a plurality of foldable gussets, each gusset connecting two
adjacent side panels;
a first pair of opposing closure panels extending from the first
pair of opposing side panels and each closure panel having an
opposing hook closure device; and
a second pair of opposing closure panels extending from the
second pair of opposing side panels,
wherein an area of either pair of opposing closure panels exceed
85% of an area of an opening defined by edges of the pairs of
opposing side panels distal to the bottom panel.

The Appellant urges that claim 13 is separately patentable because it
includes the additional element of “panels defined by score lines” (Br. p. 20,
11
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
ll. 19-21). The Appellant urges that “score lines” are to be defined as
“partially penetrating the card stock material.” (Id., ll. 15-16).
First, we observe that Thiolat’s Figure 1 depicts panels defined by
score lines. (Thiolat, col. 1, ll. 37-40).
Second, to the extent the Appellant is asserting a unique definition of
“score lines” as requiring a degree of penetration, the Appellant has pointed
us to two paragraphs in its specification. The Appellant cites paragraphs 65
and 66 of his specification, which read as follow:
[0065] FIG. 9 shows a sectional view along the line 9-9 of FIG. 8.
FIG 9 shows a portion of score line 27 with scored portions 90 and
unscored portions 92. Scored portions 90 have length L1 94.
Unscored portions 92 have length L296. Scored portions 90 have
depth of scoring D1 98. The paperboard has thickness D2 99. The
ratio of penetration is defined as the ratio of depth of scoring D1 98
divided by thickness of the paperboard D2 99.

[0066] In one embodiment, the ratio of penetration of score line 27 is
between about 0.1 and about 0.9. In another embodiment, the ratio of
penetration of score line 27 is between about 0.2 and 0.8. In another
embodiment, the ratio of penetration of score line 27 is between about
0.3 and about 0.7. In another embodiment , the ratio of penetration of
score line 27 is between about 0.45 and about 0.55 . In another
embodiment, the ratio of penetration of score line 27 is about 0.5.

Neither of these paragraphs defines “score lines” as partially
penetrating the stock panel. Rather, paragraph 65 defines the term “ratio of
penetration” and paragraph 66 gives specific embodiments of the invention
which include penetration, but nowhere is an exclusive definition of the term
“scoring” made.
Claims are given their broadest reasonable interpretation during
prosecution. Claim construction begins with the words of the claim.
12
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Rexnord Corp. v. Laitram Corp., 274 F.3d 1336, 1341, 60 USPQ2d 1851,
1854 (Fed. Cir. 2001). Generally, terms in a patent claim are given their
plain, ordinary, and accustomed meaning to one of ordinary skill in the
relevant art. (Id.). Thiolat forms its blanks with score lines (Thiolat, col. 1,
ll. 36-40), and the Appellant has not shown how its score lines are different.
Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this argument and shall affirm
this rejection as it pertains to claim 13.
ii) The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-11 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over DeMay and Collins.
The Examiner has found that DeMay describes a container with a
bottom panel, first side panels 6, 7, second side panels 7, 8 and gussets. The
Examiner has found that DeMay teaches all of the claimed elements except
for hook devices. The Examiner additionally found Collins teaches that it
was known in the art to provide hook devices on all closure panels.
The Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to provide
Collins’ hook devices in DeMay for better panel securing. Alternatively, the
Examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to employ the gussets
of DeMay in the box of Collins to prevent leaking. (Answer, p. 3, ll. 11-18).
The Appellant first urges that the examiner “fails to indicate where
within DeMay, or Collins for that matter, the element of closing the closure
flaps in an arbitrary order is taught or suggested.” (Br. p. 9, ll. 12-14).
First, the claim does not read “closed and secured” in an arbitrary
order. We find that closed means shut. DeMay’s closures may be closed in
an arbitrary order, even if not secured.
13
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Second, the Appellant has not pointed out how the structure as
claimed in claim 1 differs in any way from the structure of Collins. It
appears that Collins’ closures as illustrated above have the same type of
closures as claimed in claim 1 in the same locations. Accordingly, it appears
that Collins’ flaps can be closed in any order.
The Appellant next urges that the combination of Collins with DeMay
is inappropriate in that the Examiner has “failed to provide a sufficient
motivation” (Br., p. 9, ll. 16-18). According to the Appellant, DeMay is
more concerned with minimizing material and Collins does not contemplate
a structure capable of retaining liquids or nesting. The objectives of each are
said to be “inconsistent”, and would not motivate the skilled artisan to
combine the references in the manner suggested by the Examiner. The
Appellant urges that the Examiner has applied hindsight. (Br. p. 9, ll. 22 - p.
10, ll. 6-8).
We are unpersuaded by this argument.
First, we observe that Collins provides sufficient express motivation
to make the combination suggested by the Examiner. Collins explicitly
states that his securing flaps are inexpensive to form, easy to fasten and
unfasten, and will hold securely upon being fastened. (Collins, col. 1, ll. 5-
10). This is sufficient motivation to inform one of ordinary skill in the art
that the closure flaps are a superior substitute for the single hook of DeMay.
Second, even without an express motivation, as stated in In re Fout,
675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536 (CCPA 1982) “Express suggestion
to substitute one equivalent for another need not be present to render such
substitution obvious.” Replacing one type of known fastening system with
14
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
another known fastening system is an obvious substitution. The Appellant
invented neither the container nor the fastening system. He simply put two
known items together in their intended manner for their intended purposes.
Third, the argument that the “objectives” of the references are
different and thus they cannot be combined is devoid of legal merit. We
observe that each reference relates to a paper container. Second, the
Appellant has presented no persuasive evidence that the combination would
be inoperable. We have only attorney conjecture. See In re Sponnoble, 405
F.2d 578, 587, 160 USPQ 237, 244 (CCPA 1969) (references improperly
taken in combination as they would produce a "seemingly inoperative
device").
Lastly, we observe that Collins’ closures have specific benefits to the
security of closing Thiolat’s container. “[I]f a technique has been used to
improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l v.
Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007).
Consequently, we affirm this rejection as it relates to claims 1, 5,
8-11, and 14-15.
The Appellant has argued claim 7 separately.
Claim 7 reads as follows:
7. The reclosable food container of claim 1, wherein the first pair of
opposing side panels extend from a shorter side of the bottom panel
than the second pair of opposing side panels.

The Appellant urges that Collins teaches identical panels and cannot
be modified to have a rectangular geometry as identical panels cannot
15
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
interlock on a rectangular box. (Br. p. 12, ll. 1-3). The Appellant urges that
the opposing closure flaps extending from the shorter sides would not be
capable of extending far enough across the box to meet at their ends and
interlock. (Br. p. 12, ll. 3-12). This argument is unpersuasive.
First, we observe that the cited prior art teachings are directed to a
person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226
USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Moreover, DeMay’s box already has
appropriately sized flaps. The skilled artisan would have used correctly
sized flaps to properly close a rectangular-shaped paper box.
Second, the Appellant urges that DeMay teaches a box for enclosing
food and liquid while Collins does not contemplate a structure capable of
retaining liquids. Accordingly, the Appellant suggests that hindsight must
be the reason the references have been combined. (Br. p. 12, ll. 12-17).
This argument is without persuasive merit. As noted above, Collins’
closures are stated to have desirable properties, which provide ample
motivation to make the combination with DeMay.
We therefore affirm this rejection as it relates to claim 8.
The Appellant has argued claim 9 separately.
Claim 9 reads as follows:
9. A reclosable food container assembled from a unitary blank, the
container comprising:
a bottom panel;
a first pair of opposing side panels extending from the
bottom panel;
a second pair of opposing side panels extending from the
bottom panel;
a plurality of foldable gussets; each gusset connecting
two adjacent side panels;
16
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
a first pair of opposing closure panels extending from the
first pair of opposing side panels and each closure panel having
an opposing hook closure device; and
a second pair of opposing closure panels extending from
the second pair of opposing side panels and each closure panel
having an opposing closure device,
wherein an area of either pair of opposing closure panels
exceed 85% of an area of an opening defined by edges of the
pairs of opposing side panels distal to the bottom panel.

The Appellant urges that neither DeMay nor Collins explicitly teach
that the area of each pair of opposing closure panels exceed 85% of the area
of the opening defined by the edges of the pairs of opposing side panels.
The Appellant cites In re Wertheim 541 F. 2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA
1976) for the proposition that a claimed range may be prima facie obvious
when the claimed ranges overlap or lie within ranges disclosed by the prior
art. The Appellant then again urges that neither DeMay nor Collins teaches
or suggests a particular range of closure for its panels, let alone one
overlapping or within the Appellant’s claimed range in excess of 85%. (Br.
p. 14, l. 21 - p. 15, l. 9).
We are not persuaded by this argument. Discovering the optimal
amount of lid coverage for the flaps of a portable food container would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and could have been arrived
at by routine experimentation. See In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 276, 205
USPQ 215, 219 (CCPA 1980) (“[D]iscovery of an optimum value of a result
effective variable in a known process is ordinarily within the skill of the
art.”); In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is
17
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine
experimentation.”).
DeMay suggests that the panels be “dimensioned to close off a portion
off access opening 3” (DeMay, col. 7, ll. 38-42). Selecting appropriate-
sized panels to close off openings is within the ordinary skill of one skilled
in the art.
We shall affirm this rejection as it applies to claim 9.
The Appellant has again discussed claim 13 separately.
The Appellant again urges that claim 13 is “separately patentable
because it includes the additional element of panels defined by score lines”
(Br. p. 16, ll. 13-14). The Appellant again urges that “score lines” are to be
defined as “partially penetrating the card stock material.” (Id., ll. 15-16).
We observe that the Appellant has not expressly defined “score lines”
in a way which would remove the fold lines of the references. The
Examiner has found them to be equivalent, and the Appellant has not put in
any evidence that they are not functionally or structurally the same. DeMay
expressly notes that food cartons are pre-cut and pre-scored (DeMay, col. 1,
ll. 36-38). As noted above, claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation during prosecution. Accordingly, we are not persuaded by this
argument and shall affirm this rejection as it pertains to claim 13.
iii) The rejection of claims 9, 11, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as being unpatentable over DeMay and Collins, further in view of Thiolat.
The Examiner has found that Thiolat teaches that the container can
have four flaps F, F2, D, and D1 with securing means of hooks G and G1.
(Thiolat, col. 2, ll. 28-30). All flaps may be provided with lugs G, G1
18
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
(Thiolat, col. 2, ll. 32-34). The Examiner has additionally found that folding
the two flaps of Thiolat would result in a coverage of about 100%.
The Examiner then concludes that it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art to provide the coverage of more than 85% to
provide added protection. (Answer, p. 9, ll. 8-16).
The Appellant urges that neither Collins nor DeMay teach or suggest
opposing closure panels exceeding 85% of an area of an opening. Thiolat is
said not to have suggested first and second pairs of opposing closure panels.
(Br. p. 17, ll. 3-13).
The Appellant urges that the Examiner’s reading of Thiolat is
“illogical and inappropriate” because it deprives Thiolat of a closure means,
citing Thiolat, column 2, ll. 34-35. (Br. p. 17, ll. 18-20). Thiolat states that
its handle may be omitted and in the flaps E, E1 are replaced with lugs G, G1
and slits H, and H1 (Thiolat, col. 2, ll. 28-30). In other words, Thiolat
describes a four lugged closure. The entire section is reproduced below:
According to a modification which is not illustrated, the box
need not comprise a handle. In this case, the tabs E, E are suppressed
and may possibly be replaced by securing means such as the lugs G,
G1 and slits H, H1. According to another modification, the elements
F, F1 and the lugs G, G1 are suppressed and the parts D, D1 are
furnished either with tongues such as E, E1 or with lugs such as G, G1
co-acting with slits such as H, H1. Thus they may be deprived of
any closure means. In practice, however, the elements F, F1 cannot
be completely suppressed without the risk that the tongues P, P1 may
not find sufficient material for engagement with. Nevertheless, these
elements can be considerably reduced, that is to say the dimensions
just sufficient to permit the formation of the folding lines 4.

(Thiolat, col. 2, ll. 27-41) (bold reflecting the Appellant’s cited portion)
(italics reflecting the Examiner’s cited portion).
19
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
The Appellant next urges that the Examiner is incorrectly relying on
Thiolat for its drawings 3 and 4 where the drawings are not to scale. The
Appellant is correct that drawings are not necessarily to scale and should not
be relied upon for precise measurements. However, in this instance we
again observe that Thiolat is not being relied upon for a precise
measurement - one of ordinary skill in the art would have discerned that
almost 100% of the opening of Thiolat is covered by the closure flaps.
Additionally, Thiolat is cumulative of DeMay and Collins. Each describes a
certain amount of coverage of the opening with flaps, which amount is
within the skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to determine. Accordingly,
we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in this regard.
The Appellant has recited claim 13 separately. The Appellant again
urges that claim 13 is “separately patentable because it includes the
additional element of panels defined by score lines” (Br. p. 19, ll. 7-8). The
Appellant again urges that “score lines” are to be defined as “partially
penetrating the card stock material.” (Id., ll. 16-17). No evidence as to how
score lines renders this claim patentable has been adduced. Accordingly, we
are not persuaded by this repeated argument.

CONCLUSION OF LAW
On the record before us, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner
erred in any finding of fact or conclusion of law. Accordingly:
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7-11 and 13-15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over DeMay and Collins is AFFIRMED.
20
Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
The rejection of claims 9, 11, and 13-14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over DeMay and Collins, further in view of Thiolat, is
AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 9, 11, and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
being anticipated by Thiolat is AFFIRMED.
DECISION
The Examiner's rejections of claims 1, 5, 7-11, and 13-15 are all
AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
AFFIRMED

JOHN S. PRATT, ESQ
KILPATRICK STOCKTON, LLP
1100 PEACHTREE STREET
ATLANTA GA 30309
21