Ex Parte Slomski

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Feb 7, 2013

10836016 (P.T.A.B. Feb. 7, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
10/836,016 04/30/2004 Edward J. Slomski 14373/ITW0086.US 9157
48494 7590 02/08/2013
TAYLOR IP, P.C.
ILLINOIS TOOL WORKS INC.
142 S. MAIN ST
PO BOX 560
AVILLA, IN 46710
EXAMINER
PICKETT, JOHN G
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3788
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
02/08/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte EDWARD J. SLOMSKI
____________________

Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before JAMES P. CALVE, BRETT C. MARTIN, and NEIL T. POWELL,
Administrative Patent Judges.

POWELL, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1-6, 8-16, and 24-32. We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is illustrative of the appealed
subject matter:
1. A container carrier comprising:
first and second sheets of pliable material
connected to each other by at least one weld line;
at least one of said sheets defining an array
of loops each adapted for surrounding and holding
a container, said array having an outer edge;
at least one of said sheets defining a handle
portion including a top segment above said array,
said top segment having an outer edge;
a substantially continuous region of material
extending from said outer edge of said handle top
segment to said outer edge of said array; and
at least one line of perforations extending
through said region of material from said outer
edge of said array to said outer edge of said handle
top segment, perforations in said at least one line
of perforations adapted and arranged for tearing
said material between said outer edge of said array
and said outer edge of said handle top segment, to
separate said array into at least a first sub-unit and
a second sub-unit while retaining containers of
said sub-units secured in said loops, and for
separating said handle portion into at least first and
second handle sub-portions each connected to a
different one of said sub-units, said at least one
line of perforations intersecting said weld line for
separating said weld line with a part thereof in said
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

3
first subunit and another part thereof in said second
subunit.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner’s rejections of the claims to be reviewed on appeal
include:
1. Claim 28 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Olsen ‘821 (US 6,182,821 B1; iss. Feb. 6, 2001). Ans. 3.
2. Claims 30-32 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as
anticipated by Olsen ‘098 (US 6,969,098 B2; iss. Nov. 29, 2005). Id.
3. Claims 1-6, 8-10, 12-16, and 24-29 stand rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Olsen ‘098 and Olsen ‘821. Id.
at 4.
4. Claim 11 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Olsen ‘098, Olsen ‘821, and Marco (US 5,806,667, iss.
Sep. 15, 1998). Id. at 7.

ANALYSIS
Anticipation Rejection of Claim 28
The Examiner finds that the portion of the Olsen ‘821 container
carrier identified by reference numerals 35 constitutes a “dividable handle”
as recited in claim 28, and that the Olsen ‘821 container carrier has a “line of
perforations 50 arranged as claimed.” See Ans. 3. The Examiner also finds
that the structure forming the “dividable handle” of Olsen ‘821 includes “a
dividable top segment defining an outer edge” and “a dividable bottom
segment having a connection to the array along a side opposite to said outer
edge” in a region traversed by the line of perforations 50. See Ans. at 8-9;
App
App

see a
porti
The
the E
Olse
of cl
segm
App
to th
and b
argu
Exam
line
betw
not i
4).
inter
durin
F.3d
eal 2010-0
lication 10
lso Ans. 3
on of Figu
magnified
xaminer f
n ‘821 con
Appellan
aim 28 rel
ent,” and
ellant, in c
e connecti
ottom seg
es that the
iner does
of perforat
een “separ
nclude a to
In respo
pretation o
g examin
1359 (Fed
00765
/836,016
. The Exa
re 1 of Ol
, annotated
inds top an
tainer carr
t argues th
ated to the
the “line o
laim 28, th
on to the a
ments of t
portion of
not meet
ions 50 tra
ate and di
p segmen
nse, the Ex
f the claim
ation. Ans
. Cir. 200
miner poi
sen ‘821, w
portion o
d bottom
ier.
at Olsen
“dividabl
f perforati
e “line of
rray and th
he handle
the Olsen
the claim l
verses 1)
stinct six p
t and a bot
aminer no
language
. 8 (citing
4)). Given
4
nts this ou
hich we r
f Figure 1
segments
‘821 does
e top segm
ons.” App
perforatio
erefore cl
.” Id. at 14
‘821 cont
imitations
does not c
ack handl
tom segm
tes that th
in view o
In re Am.
this, the E
t with a m
eproduce
of Olsen ‘
of a divida
not meet a
ent,” the “
. Br. 14-1
ns extends
early exten
. Buildin
ainer carri
because th
onstitute a
es” (App.
ent (App. B
e broadest
f the speci
Acad. of S
xaminer m
agnified, a
below.
821 illustr
ble handle
ll of the lim
dividable
5. Accord
from the
ds throug
g on this, A
er pointed
e structur
handle bu
Br. 14) an
r. 14-15;
reasonabl
fication ap
c. Tech. C
aintains
nnotated

ates where
of the
itations
bottom
ing to
outer edge
h the top
ppellant
to by the
e that the
t lies
d 2) does
Reply Br.
e
plies
tr., 367
that the

Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

5
structure in Olsen ‘821 identified by reference numerals 35 and crossed by
the line of perforations 50 constitutes a “dividable handle,” as recited in
claim 28, because “Olsen ‘821 . . . indicates that portions 35 are integrally
formed (Col. 3:24-25), and therefore the combined structure may be
considered a handle.” Id. at 9. The Examiner also maintains that the portion
of this dividable handle traversed by the line of perforations 50 includes “a
dividable top segment” and “a dividable bottom segment,” as recited in
claim 28, because “[c]laim 28 requires no structure to delimit ‘segments’ of
the handle into distinct portions.” Ans. 8.
Appellant responds that the Examiner ignores aspects of claim 28 and
Olsen ‘821. Appellant argues that “Olsen ‘821 clearly and unequivocally
shows in Figure 1 and describes in the written teaching that two separate
handles 35 are provided.” Reply Br. 4. And Appellant argues that the
Examiner errs by “attempt[ing] to show a single portion of the prior art as
being both a top segment and a bottom segment as recited in claim 28”
because “[t]his ignores that two separate and distinct elements are recited
and the prior art shows only a single structure in the portion referred to by
the Examiner.” Reply Br. 4.
We consider first the dispute regarding whether the claim 28
limitation “handle” reads on the portion of the Olsen ‘821 container carrier
identified with reference numerals 35 and traversed by the line of
perforations 50 in the region pointed out by the Examiner. The Specification
does not explicitly define the term “handle.” However, the Specification
discloses that Figure 1 shows a container carrier 10 with a “handle
portion 12” (Spec., para. [21]), and the Specification indicates that the
handle portion 12 constitutes a “handle” (Id. at para. [35]). The handle
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

6
includes “a top segment 30, a bottom segment 32, end segments 34 and 36,”
and “[a]n intermediate segment 38” integrally connected to one another. Id.
at para. 23; see also Fig. 1.
The segments 30, 32, 34, 36, and 38 integrally connect to one another
in such a manner that the handle has two handle openings 44 and 46
surrounded by two distinct handle loops connected to one another by
intermediate segment 38, each handle loop having its own gripping portion.
See Id. at para. 23; see also Fig. 1. Each of the embodiments shown in
Appellant’s Figures 2-4 similarly has a handle that includes segments
integrally connected to one another in a manner such that the handle has two
handle openings surrounded by two distinct handle loops connected by
intermediate structure, each of the handle loops including its own gripping
portion. See Id., paras. [34]-[37]; Figs. 2-4.
Accordingly, in view of the Specification, we conclude that the
broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “handle” in claim 28
encompasses structure with two gripping portions formed by two handle
loops integrally connected by intermediate structure. Appellant does not
point to any portion of claim 28, any portion of the Specification, or any
other evidence that requires a narrower interpretation.
Because Olsen ‘821 uses reference numerals 35 to identify structure
with two gripping portions formed by two handle loops integrally connected
by intermediate structure (see Olsen ‘821, col. 3, ll. 24-36 and Fig. 1), the
Examiner correctly found that this structure meets the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “handle” in claim 28. While we appreciate
Appellant’s argument that Olsen ‘821 refers to this structure as including
“handles 35,” as Appellant notes on pages 13-14 of the Appeal Brief, the test
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

7
for anticipation “is not an ‘ipsissimis verbis’ test,” i.e., identity of
terminology is not required. In re Bond, 910 F.2d 831, 832-33 (Fed. Cir.
1990). Appellant’s arguments based on differences in terminology between
claim 28 and the disclosure of Olsen ‘821 do not establish error in the
Examiner’s finding because Appellant has not pointed to any specific
structural feature that the claimed “handle” requires and that is missing from
the structure identified with reference numbers 35 in Olsen ‘821.
We consider next the dispute regarding whether Olsen ‘821 includes a
“top segment” and a “bottom segment,” as recited in claim 28, in the
locations identified by the Examiner. As noted above, Appellant’s
arguments that the Examiner erred rest on the assertion that in claim 28, the
“line of perforations extends from the outer edge to the connection to the
array and therefore clearly extends through the top and bottom segments of
the handle.” App. Br. 14.
With this in mind, we look to the Specification for guidance regarding
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language “top segment”
and “bottom segment.” The Specification discloses that “a substantially
continuous region of material extends from handle top segment 30 to the
outer edge of container holding portion 14, and a line of perforations 76
extends through the material from the outer edge of container holding
portion 14 to the outer edge of handle top segment 30.” Spec., para. 27. As
Appellant’s Figure 1 shows, the substantially continuous region of material
through which the line of perforations 76 extends includes both the handle
top segment 30 and the handle bottom segment 32. Accordingly, if we
accept Appellant’s argument that claim 28 requires that the line of
perforations extends through the top and bottom segments, we conclude
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

8
based on the disclosure in the Specification that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the claim limitations “top segment” and “bottom segment”
encompasses top and bottom portions of a substantially continuous region of
material. Thus, Appellant’s arguments do not apprise us of error in the
Examiner’s finding that Olsen ‘821 includes a “dividable top segment” and a
“dividable bottom segment,” as recited in claim 28, in the portions of the
substantially continuous region of material pointed out by the Examiner. 1
In addition to the foregoing, Appellant argues that claim 28 would not
have been obvious in view of Olsen ‘821. App. Br. 15. These arguments
also fail to apprise us of error in the Examiner’s finding that Olsen ‘821
anticipates claim 28.

Anticipation Rejection of Claims 30-32
Appellant argues claims 30 and 31 as a group (App. Br. 16-18), and
Appellant subsequently argues claims 30 and 32 as a group (App. Br. 19).
Accordingly, we select independent claim 30 as representative, and we treat
dependent claims 31 and 32 as standing or falling with representative claim
30. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii).
The Examiner finds that the Olsen ‘098 disclosure of dividing a band
160 of carriers 10 (in connection with Figure 4 of Olsen ‘098) would
produce “[a] group of individualized and separate carrier subunits” meeting
all of the limitations of claim 30. Ans. 3-4 and 9-10. Appellant disputes this
finding, arguing that “Olsen ‘098 clearly describes item 160 . . . as a band or

1 If Appellant’s argument that claim 28 requires that the line of perforations
extends through the top and bottom segments were incorrect, Appellant’s
entire basis for asserting that Olsen ‘821 fails to meet the “dividable top
segment” and “dividable bottom segment” limitations would collapse.
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

9
supply that includes a plurality of carriers, not a carrier that in and of itself is
dividable into a plurality of subunits each having a portion of a handle and a
portion of an array which together comprise all of the handle and all of the
array in a single carrier as required in [claim 30].” App. Br. 17. Appellant
further argues that “[t]he carriers 160 of Olsen ‘098 each have a separate
handle and a separate array.” Id. at 17-18.
In response, the Examiner notes that the band 160 of Olsen ‘098 has
carriers 10 integrally formed with one another, and the handle and array
portions of each carrier 10 interconnected prior to separation. Ans. 10.
Accordingly, the Examiner finds, the band 160 forms a cohesive carrier, the
handle portions form all of the handle of the cohesive carrier, and the array
portions form all of the array of the cohesive carrier. Id.
Appellant responds that the Examiner’s “analysis again ignores the
clear and unequivocal teachings of the applied references.” Reply Br. 5.
Appellant argues that Olsen ‘098 does not suggest that band 160 and the
handle and array portions therefore should be considered or could be used as
a cohesive unit. Id.
Appellant’s foregoing arguments focus on the names and uses that
Olsen ‘098 discloses for the structure it shows in Figure 4. Appellant’s
arguments do not point to any specific structural features required by the
claims and missing from Olsen ‘098. The test for anticipation “is not an
‘ipsissimis verbis’ test,” i.e., identity of terminology is not required.
Bond, 910 F.2d at 832-33. Additionally, it is well settled that the recitation
of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old
product patentable. In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Thus, because Appellant’s arguments related to the “cohesive carrier” do not
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

10
identify any specific structural feature or features missing from the prior art,
they do not apprise us of error in the rejection.
Appellant also argues that “Olsen ‘098 does not teach separating a
weld line of a carrier into weld line portions.” App. Br. 19. The Examiner
counters that “it is noted that Appellant’s own weld lines are not continuous
with subsequent separation, but are interrupted by openings 100/102/104.”
Ans. 10. In response, Appellant reverts to the argument that the band 160
disclosed by Olsen ‘098 does not constitute a cohesive carrier, stating that
“[o]penings 170/172 of Olsen ‘098 are not openings in a carrier but instead
openings between adjacent carriers, as discussed above.” Reply Br. 6.
Because they do not point out any specific structural distinction between
claim 30 and the Olsen ‘098 band 160, Appellant’s arguments regarding
separating a weld line do not apprise us of error in the rejection.
Appellant also argues that Olsen ‘098 does not anticipate claim 30
because “Olsen ‘098 does not teach a handle portion welded to a container
holding portion, but instead two sheets welded together, with each sheet
having an integral handle portion and a container holding portion.” Reply
Br. 6. The Examiner maintains that claim 30 “only requires that the array of
loops and handle of the individual subunits be welded; Olsen ‘098 clearly
discloses this feature at 28.” Ans. 10.
Appellant’s argument appears to assume that the claim language
“each carrier subunit . . . having an array portion with a handle portion
welded thereto” is limited to Appellant’s Figure 4 embodiment and excludes
Appellant’s embodiments of Figures 1 and 2. Appellant’s characterization
of the prior art as having “two sheets welded together, with each sheet
having an integral handle portion and a container holding portion” also
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

11
describes Appellant’s embodiments of Figures 1 and 2, but does not describe
Appellant’s embodiment of Figure 4. See Spec., paras. [22]-[26]; Fig. 1.
Additionally, the plain meaning of the claim language would encompass a
container carrier having “two sheets welded together, with each sheet having
an integral handle portion and a container holding portion” because an array
portion of one sheet of the container carrier has a handle portion of the other
sheet welded thereto by the welds that connect the two sheets.
Thus, the claim language reads both on the container carrier of
Appellant’s Figures 1, 2 and on the container carrier of Olsen ‘098, unless
we read into claim 30 Appellant’s Figure 4 embodiment as narrowing the
broader claim language. Appellant has not pointed to any portion of the
Specification or any other evidence suggesting that the correct interpretation
of claim 30 incorporates Appellant’s Figure 4 embodiment and excludes
Appellant’s embodiments of Figures 1 and 2. Thus, we conclude the claim
is not so limited. See SuperGuideCorp. V. DirecTV Enterprises, Inc.,
358 F.3d 870, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (admonishing against reading into a
claim a particular embodiment of the written description when the claim
language is broader than the embodiment.). Accordingly, Appellant’s
foregoing argument does not apprise us of error in the rejection.
Appellant also argues that claims 30-32 would not been obvious in
view of Olsen ‘098. App. Br. 18-19. These arguments also fail to apprise us
of error in the Examiner’s finding that Olsen ‘098 anticipates claim 30.

Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1-6, 8-10, and 25
Appellant argues claims 1-6, 8-10, and 25 as a group. We select
independent claim 1 as representative.
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

12
The Examiner finds that Olsen ‘098 discloses a container carrier that
meets every limitation of claim 1 except for one thing: “Olsen ‘098 merely
lacks the at least one line of perforation.” Ans. 4. The Examiner also finds
that Olsen ‘821 teaches extending a line of perforations through a carrier,
including extending the line of perforations through a handle portion 35 of
the carrier, for dividing the carrier into subunits. Id. The Examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious to add a line of perforations as
disclosed by Olsen ‘821 to the carrier of Olsen ‘098 and to extend the line of
perforations all the way across the Olsen ‘098 carrier, including across the
weld lines of the ‘098 carrier, to allow quickly dividing the Olsen ‘098
carrier into subunits. Id.
Appellant argues that
nothing in the teachings of Olsen ‘098 together
with Olsen ‘821 suggests a line of perforations for
separating the carrier arrays into first and second
subunits, with the line of perforations extending
across weld lines and through the main handle of
the carrier to divide the main handle into sub
handle portions, each suitable for carrying a part of
the original package.
App. Br. 24. Regarding a line of perforations extending across weld lines,
Appellant notes that 1) Olsen ‘821 does not disclose a weld line and 2)
Olsen ‘098 does not disclose a line of perforations extending through welds.
Id. at 21. The Examiner responds that “Olsen ‘098 defines weld lines
24/26/28 and that any separation would necessarily need to be provided
through said lines.” Ans. 14. In response, Appellant states “[j]ust because it
is necessary to modify the prior art in a specific way to achieve the present
invention does not render that modification obvious.” Reply Br. 9.
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

13
Appellant misapprehends and does not squarely rebut the Examiner’s
position regarding how the cited references render obvious the claim
limitations relating to a line of perforations extending across weld lines. The
Examiner finds 1) that the Olsen ‘821 disclosure of a line of perforations
through a container carrier would have given a person of ordinary skill in the
art reason to add a line of perforations through the container carrier of
Olsen ‘098 (Ans. 4) and 2) that doing so would necessarily involve
extending the line of perforations across the weld lines in Olsen ‘098 (See
Ans. 14). By merely arguing that neither reference by itself discloses a line
of perforations extending across a weld line, Appellant has not demonstrated
any error in the Examiner’s position based on the combined teachings of
Olsen ‘821 and Olsen ‘098.
Appellant also advances various arguments challenging the
Examiner’s conclusion that the cited references would have rendered it
obvious to extend a line of perforations through the handle portion of
Olsen ‘098. Appellant argues that “Olsen ‘821 teaches . . . two distinct and
separate sub-unit handles 35” (App. Br. 20), and that “[n]o handle of any
type is divided or torn in any way in the teaching of Olsen ‘821” (Id. at 21.).
Appellant also argues that “[i]n every example of Olsen ‘821, the main
handle for the carrier is removed when the carrier is divided.” Id. at 23.
Based on this, Appellant argues that Olsen ‘821 teaches away from the
claimed invention. Id. Appellant similarly argues that “the entire teaching
of Olsen ‘821 must be applied, including the teaching to remove the main
handle whenever dividing the larger package.” Id. at 22 (emphasis
removed). Based on these arguments, Appellant submits that the
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

14
Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness stems from improper hindsight
reconstruction. App. Br. 24.
In response, the Examiner maintains that, contrary to Appellant’s
arguments, Olsen ‘821 teaches extending a line of perforations through a
“handle portion 35” for dividing it. Ans. 11 and 13. On this point, the
Examiner states: “It is respectfully asserted that portion 35 of Olsen ‘821 is
a unitary piece of handle material prior to separation along line 50. . . . It
may have two gripping portions, but this does not detract from its unitary
nature prior to separation.” Ans. 13. The Examiner also notes that “Olsen
‘821 in no way criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution
presented by the Appellant and therefore cannot be considered to ‘teach
away’ from the claimed invention.” Ans. 11 (citing In re Fulton, 391 F.3d
1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004)). The Examiner acknowledges that Olsen ‘821
discloses removing a handle, in addition to dividing a handle. Id. But the
Examiner finds that simply applying to Olsen ‘098 the Olsen ‘821 teaching
of dividing a container carrier through the handle would beneficially enable
separation of the ‘098 container carrier into subunits that retain the handle
function, rather than removing the handle and eliminating the handle
function. Id. at 13. Accordingly, the Examiner asserts that the Olsen ‘821
disclosure of the additional possibility of removing a handle does not negate
the obviousness of applying to Olsen ‘098 the Olsen ‘821 disclosure of
dividing a container carrier through a handle portion, which the Examiner
finds would yield only predictable results. Id. at 12.
To address the dispute regarding whether Olsen ‘821 discloses using a
line of perforations extending through a handle portion to divide the handle
portion, we first consider the broadest reasonable interpretation of “handle
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

15
portion,” as recited in claim 1. Appellant has not pointed to any aspect of
claim 1, the Specification, or any other evidence that requires a narrower
interpretation of the term “handle portion” in claim 1 than the term “handle”
in claim 28. Accordingly, for substantially the reasons discussed above in
connection with the interpretation of “handle” in claim 28, we conclude that
the broadest reasonable interpretation of the term “handle portion” in claim 1
encompasses structure with two gripping portions formed by two handle
loops integrally connected by intermediate structure. Based on this
interpretation, we agree with the Examiner’s findings that the portion of
Olsen ‘821 identified by reference numerals 35 constitutes a handle portion,
and that Olsen ‘821 discloses extending a line of perforations through this
handle portion and using the line of perforations to divide the handle portion
as part of dividing the container carrier. 2
Additionally, we agree with the Examiner that Appellant has not
established that Olsen ‘821 teaches away from the claimed invention, as
Appellant has not cited any evidence or provided any reasoning that
convincingly contradicts the Examiner’s finding that Olsen ‘821 does not
criticize, discredit, or discourage dividing a handle portion as part of
dividing a container carrier. See Fulton, 391 F.3d at 1201. Similarly,
Appellant has not cited any authority or evidence that actually supports the
proposition that a person of ordinary skill in the art could apply the teachings

2 Indeed, even if Appellant did establish that the broadest reasonable
interpretation of the term “handle” in claim 28 does not encompass the
structure described by Olsen ‘821 as “handles 35,” the term “handle portion”
used in claim 1 would appear to have a broader meaning than “handle,” and
Appellant has not pointed to any structural feature that the term “handle
portion” requires that would not exist in a structure that includes two
integrally formed handles.
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

16
of Olsen ‘821 only by blindly copying every aspect of its disclosure. See
App. Br. 22.
Appellant’s arguments lose sight of the two most salient aspects of the
rejection: 1) the Examiner’s undisputed finding that the Olsen ‘098
container carrier differs from the claimed container carrier only by the lack
of a line of perforations for dividing the carrier (Ans. 4) and 2) the
Examiner’s correct finding that Olsen ‘821 discloses a line of perforations
extending through a container carrier, including through a handle portion of
the carrier, for dividing the carrier (Id. at 4, 11, and 13). As the Examiner
correctly found, Olsen ‘821 discloses two approaches for dealing with a
handle portion that spans the middle of a container carrier prior to division
of the container carrier: 1) removing the handle portion, or 2) dividing the
handle portion. See Id. at 4 and 11-12. Given this, we agree with the
Examiner that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the
possibility and associated benefits of simply applying to the Olsen ‘098
carrier the Olsen ‘821 teaching of a line of perforations used to divide both
an array of loops and an adjacent handle portion of a container carrier.
Accordingly, we also agree with the Examiner’s conclusion that the
container carrier of claim 1 would have been obvious to a person of ordinary
skill in the art based on Olsen ‘098 and Olsen ‘821. See KSR Int’l Co. v.
Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) (“[T]he analysis need not seek out
precise teachings directed to the specific subject matter of the challenged
claim, for a court can take account of the inferences and creative steps that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”); see also Id. at 421 (“A
person of ordinary skill is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an
automaton.”). Because the Examiner’s conclusion of obviousness rests on
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

17
articulated reasoning with rational underpinning based on the disclosures in
the cited references, we disagree with Appellant’s argument that the
Examiner has resorted to improper hindsight reconstruction.

Obviousness Rejection of Claims 12-16
Appellant argues claims 12-16 as a group. We select independent
claim 12 as representative.
Appellant challenges the rejection of claim 12 in substantially the
same way as Appellant challenged the rejection of claim 1: Appellant
argues that it would not have been obvious in view of Olsen ‘821 and
Olsen ‘098 to divide a weld or divide a handle. App. Br. 26-27. In support
of this argument, Appellant does not offer any significant reasoning or
evidence beyond that offered in support of the arguments Appellant
advanced in connection with claim 1. Accordingly, for substantially the
reasons discussed above in connection with claim 1, Appellant does not
apprise us of error in the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).

Obviousness Rejection of Claims 24 and 27
Appellant argues claims 24 and 27 as a group. We select claim 24 as
representative.
Regarding the rejection of claim 24, Appellant advances that “[t]he
analysis is similar to that provided above with respect to claim 1.” App.
Br. 29. As with claim 1, Appellant argues that “[t]he combination of
references fails to teach dividing a weld or dividing a handle as recited in
claim 24.” Id. In support of this, Appellant primarily offers the same
substantive arguments as Appellant presents in connection with claim 1. See
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

18
Id. at 28-29 and 23-25. These arguments fail to apprise us of error in the
rejection for substantially the same reasons as discussed above in connection
with claim 1.
Appellant also argues that
[d]ividing a single ply, side-applied carrier of
Olsen ‘821 does not make obvious using a line of
perforations extending through a multi-ply sheet
and through welds connecting the sheet to separate
a top lift two ply carrier in to [sic] separate
subunits each having part of the handle, part of the
array, and a segment of the weld.
Id. at 28. Appellant does not support this argument with any evidence or
substantive reasoning. Accordingly, this argument does not apprise us of
error in the rejection of claim 24.
Appellant also argues that claim 24 includes various limitations that
one reference or the other does not disclose. Id. But Appellant does not
point to any limitation of claim 24 that would not exist in the carrier
resulting from modifying Olsen ‘098 based on Olsen ‘821 in the manner
suggested by the Examiner. Accordingly, Appellant’s arguments that one
reference or the other lacks certain limitations of claim 24 do not apprise us
of error in the rejection of claim 24.

Obviousness Rejection of Claim 28
Appellant traverses the obviousness rejection of claim 28 by arguing
that “[n]one of the prior art references teaches a dividable handle of any
type, let alone the specific structure of a dividable handle with dividable top
and bottom segments for a carrier having a line of perforations for tearing
the handle into sub-handle portions.” App. Br. 29-30. This argument fails
Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

19
to recognize that, as discussed above in connection with the anticipation
rejection of claim 28, Olsen ‘821 does disclose a dividable handle with
dividable top and bottom segments. Additionally, the argument fails to
squarely address the Examiner’s position that applying the Olsen ‘821
disclosure of a line of perforations through the center of a container carrier
to Olsen ‘098 would also result in a dividable handle with dividable top and
bottom segments. See Ans. 4, 7, and 13.

Obviousness Rejection of Claim 29
Appellant traverses claim 29 by arguing that “[n]o dividable double
layer handle is taught by the prior art.” App. Br. 30. This argument fails to
squarely address the Examiner’s position that modifying the container
carrier of Olsen ‘098 with the line of perforations of Olsen ‘821 would result
in a dividable double-layer handle. See Ans. 4, 7, 13, and 17.

Obviousness Rejection of Claim 11
Regarding claim 11, Appellant offers no substantive arguments
beyond pointing to the arguments made with respect to claim 1, from which
claim 11 depends. Accordingly, for substantially the reasons discussed
above in connection with claim 1, Appellant does not apprise us of error in
the obviousness rejection of claim 11.

DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s decision regarding claims 1-6, 8-16, and
24-32.

Appeal 2010-000765
Application 10/836,016

20
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED

hh