Appeal No. 2006-1428 Παγε 6
Application No. 10/669,157
Appellants add (brief, page 16) that “[a] person of ordinary
skill in the art of planters would not reasonably look to the art
of freight containers to solve the problem of making planters of
a selected length." It is additionally asserted (brief, page 17)
that the shipping container of Rolfe is not reasonably pertinent
to the problem with which the present inventors were involved.
The examiner responds (answer, page 3) that the crate of
Khoury is capable of being used as a planter, and that the
intended use of the crate does not structurally distinguish the
claimed invention from the prior art. The examiner additionally
asserts (answer, page 4) that Rolfe is analogous prior art
because it is related to the same field, i.e., containers. It is
argued (answer, page 5) that Rolfe teaches flanges on the top and
bottom of the container that facilitate attaching and stacking.
The examiner (id.) relies upon elements 11, 12 and 13 of Rolfe as
teaching flanges on walls of the container that enable attaching
multiple containers together at different locations around the
first container (i.e. top, side, or bottom).
In the reply brief, appellants argue (reply brief, page 6)
to the effect that the examiner’s rejection is based on the
inappropriate use of hindsight, and that the enclosed container
of Rolfe would be inappropriate for use in a planter because the
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007