Appeal No. 96-0610
Application 08/257,449
We have carefully considered the issues raised in this
appeal together with the examiner’s remarks and appellants’
arguments. As a result, we conclude that the rejection of the
appealed claims is sustainable.
The collapsible container disclosed in the Spangler
patent is similar to appellants’ container in that it
comprises a bottom wall 1, a pair of sidewalls 3 and 4 and a
pair of end walls 5 defining a generally rectangular periphery
as set forth in appealed claims 1 and 17. Like appellants’
claimed invention, Spangler’s sidewalls and end wall are
hinged to the bottom wall or what amounts to an upstanding rim
portion of the bottom wall. Spangler’s collapsible container
also corresponds to appellants’ claimed invention in that the
vertical levels of the patentee’s hinges permit a first one of
the sidewalls to initially be pivoted to a collapsed position
overlying the bottom wall in parallel relation to the bottom
wall, the second sidewall to be pivoted to a collapsed
position overlying the first sidewall in parallel relation to
the first sidewall, and the two end walls to be pivoted to
non-overlapping collapsed positions overlying the second
sidewall in parallel relation to the second sidewall.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007