Appeal No. 2000-0293 Page 6
Application No. 08/766,862
plate structure. As such, we agree with the examiner that the
language of claim 2 does not satisfy the requirements of 35 U.S.C. §
112, second paragraph.
Therefore, we will sustain the examiner’s rejection under 35
U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, of claim 2 and claim 3 dependent
thereon.
We turn next to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4
through 8 and 12 through 17 as being unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §
103 over Martire in view of Gatt and Grusin. The examiner has relied
on Martire for teaching the invention substantially as claimed except
that Martire does not disclose a knob protruding upward from the
upper surface. The examiner relies on Gatt and Grusin for teaching a
knob protruding upward from the upper surface. The examiner
concludes:
It would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art in view of Gatt and
Grusin to modify the organizer of Martire ‘932
so the knob is protruded upwardly from the
upper surface with a recess formed in the lower
surface of the body to facilitate stacking, and
better securing the trays within the stack
during shipping or storage. [examiner’s answer
at page 6]
Appellant argues that the Martire tray already has means for
stacking the trays in that Martire discloses a substantially planar
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007