Appeal No. 2004-0410
Application No. 09/509,415
Claims 3-5 and 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mojden ‘278 in view of Mojden ‘010;
Claims 6 and 7 stand correspondingly rejected over these
references and further in view of Yourgalite; and claims 9 and
10 stand correspondingly rejected over the Mojden references and
further in view of Rahman.
Claims 11-16 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Mojden ‘278 in view of Yourgalite and
Mojden ‘010.
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
exposition of the contrary viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
We cannot sustain any of the above noted rejections.
In her rejections of appealed independent claims 3 and 11,
the examiner correctly points out that the primary reference to
Mojden ‘278 contains no disclosure concerning the use of wrapping
material in the here claimed palletizing apparatus and method.
Nevertheless, with respect to apparatus claim 3, the examiner
concludes that “[i]t would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to
modify the palletizing apparatus of Mojden [‘278] to include the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007