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