Appeal No. 2006-2337
Application No. 10/887,181
much dunnage as will fit into the box up to the level established by the height of the box
with respect to the fill tube and that the mound of dunnage then completes the fill of the
box.
The examiner relies upon Pryor to teach a probe, however the examiner has not
asserted, nor do we find that Pryor teaches a probe to measure parameters of a container
with an object in it and that the measurements are used to determine the void volume.
We find that Pryor teaches a probe for measuring parameters associated with a machine
tool.
Thus, we do not find that the combination of Chow and Pryor teaches or suggests
all of the claim limitations of independent claims 47 and 56. Accordingly, we will not
sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 47 through 50, 56, 59 and 60 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Chow in view of Pryor.
Claims 51 through 55, 57 and 58 ultimately depend upon either independent claim
47 or 56. The examiner has rejected these claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Chow in view of Pryor and Johnson. The examiner has not asserted,
nor do we find that Johnson teaches a probe to measure parameters of a container with an
object in it and that the measurements are used to determine the void volume.
Accordingly, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 51 through 55, 57 and
58 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Chow in view of Pryor and Johnson
for the reasons discussed above with respect to claims 47 and 56.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007