Ex parte CLARK et al. - Page 3




                 Appeal No. 96-0610                                                                                                                     
                 Application 08/257,449                                                                                                                 


                 sidewalls and the end walls lie in parallel planes upon being                                                                          
                 pivoted to their collapsed positions.  Claim 17 further            4                                                                   
                 recites that the thickness of the collapsed container is equal                                                                         
                 the sum of the thicknesses of the bottom wall, the sidewalls                                                                           
                 and the end walls.                                                                                                                     
                          A copy of appealed claims 1 and 17, as these claims appear                                                                    
                 in the appendix to appellants’ brief, is appended to this                                                                              
                 decision.                                                                                                                              
                          The following references are relied upon by the examiner                                                                      
                 in support of his rejection of the appealed claims:                                                                                    
                 Spangler                                          1,471,508                                  Oct. 23, 1923                             
                 Friedrich                                         4,062,467                                  Dec. 13, 1977                             
                          Claims 1, 2, 4 through 7 and 17 stand rejected under                                                                          
                 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Spangler in view of                                                                         
                 Friedrich.  According to the examiner, the teachings of                                                                                
                 Friedrich would have made it obvious to eliminate the cover in                                                                         
                 Spangler’s collapsible container “to allow a more compact                                                                              
                 collapsed height” (answer, page 4).  Reference is made to the                                                                          
                 examiner’s answer for further details of this rejection.                                                                               



                          4    The end walls actually lie in or, more particularly, along a common                                                      
                 plane in their collapsed positions.                                                                                                    
                                                                         -3-                                                                            




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007