Ex parte Stout

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

May 9, 2001

08372532 (B.P.A.I. May. 9, 2001)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today was
not written for publication and is not binding precedent of
the Board.
Paper No. 28
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte JAMES T. STOUT
__________
Appeal No. 1997-1878
Application 08/372,532
___________
ON BRIEF
___________
Before CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge, McCANDLISH,
Senior Administrative Patent Judge and BAHR, Administrative
Patent Judge.
CALVERT, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1,
2, 4, 5 and 8. Of the other claims remaining in the
application, claims 9 and 10 have been allowed, and claims 3
and 7 are indicated as allowable, subject to being rewritten
Appeal No. 1997-1878
Application 08/372,532
All references herein to appellant’s brief are to the1
amended brief filed on Dec. 3, 1999.
In reviewing the application, it appears that the right-2
hand ends of hand holes 148a, 148b, 149a and 149b in Fig. 3
should be open. Also, on page 5 of the specification, “22"
in lines 14 and 15 should be --24--, and “24" (first
occurrence) in line 16 should be --22--.
A further rejection of claims 4, 5 and 8 under 35 U.S.C.3
112, second paragraph, has, as stated by the examiner in Paper
No. 27 (Dec. 21, 1999), been overcome by the amendment filed
on Oct. 7, 1999.
2
in independent form.
The claims on appeal are drawn to an article carrier, and
are reproduced in the appendix of appellant’s brief.1, 2
The references applied in the final rejection are:
Holley, Jr. 4,588,084 May 13, 1986
Stout et al. (Stout) 5,333,734 Aug. 2, 1994
Skillen (Canada) 877,792 Aug. 10, 1971
The appealed claims stand finally rejected under 35
U.S.C. 103(a) as unpatentable over the following combinations
of references:3
(1) Claims 1 and 2, Holley in view of Stout;
(2) Claims 4, 5 and 8, Holley in view of Stout and Skillen.
Appeal No. 1997-1878
Application 08/372,532
Webster’s Third New Int’l. Dictionary (1993) defines4
“sleeve” as “an open-ended flat or tubular packaging or cover
(light bulbs in a sleeve).”
3
Comparing the carrier disclosed by Holley with the
apparatus recited in claim 1, Holley discloses a sleeve (Fig.
2) formed by a plurality of panels 1, 6, 7, 24, 25, 42, 43
foldably joined to one another. Holley further discloses an4
end closure for each end of the sleeve, at least one end
closure being a composite wall having a plurality of
overlapping flaps (e.g., 3, 11, 15, 29, 33, 55, 67) foldably
joined respectively to the plurality of panels. However,
Holley’s flaps do not have any finger-receiving hand-hole
apertures extending through them, nor, it follows, do they
have any score lines extending from a region of the hand-hole
apertures, as called for by claim 1. Instead, in Holley’s
carrier, the hand-hole apertures 48, 49 and score lines 50,
51, 52, 53 are in top panel 43, which constitutes one of the
panels forming the sleeve.
As we understand the examiner’s position, it is that the
recited end closures for each end of the sleeve are readable
on Holley’s panels 42, 43 containing hand-holes 48, 49,
Appeal No. 1997-1878
Application 08/372,532
See the definition of “sleeve” in footnote 4, supra.5
4
because these panels are at each end of the series of panels
1, 6, 7, 24, 25 of which the sleeve is constituted, and are
adhered together to form the sleeve. We do not consider this
position to be well taken, because in the first place, the
claim requires a sleeve, and the Holley carrier does not
become a sleeve, i.e., a tubular packaging or cover, until5
panels 42, 43 are adhered together and the carrier takes the
form shown in Fig. 2. That being the case, panels 42, 43 are
not end closures for each end of the sleeve, as required by
claim 1, but rather they are part of the side wall of the
sleeve itself. We find no teaching in Holley, or in either of
Stout or Skillen, which would suggest placing hand-hole
apertures and at least one score line as defined in claim 1 in
the end closure flaps of Holley, as for example, in flaps 3,
55, etc. Absent any such teaching or suggestion, the
rejections of claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8 cannot be sustained.
Appeal No. 1997-1878
Application 08/372,532
5
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4, 5 and 8
is reversed.
REVERSED
IAN A. CALVERT )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
HARRISON E. McCANDLISH )
Senior Administrative Patent Judge ) APPEALS
AND
)
) INTERFERENCES
)
Appeal No. 1997-1878
Application 08/372,532
6
JENNIFER D. BAHR )
Administrative Patent Judge )
IAC:pgg
The Mead Corporation
Legal Department
4850D North Church Lane
Smyrna, GA 30080