Appeal No. 96-0610 Application 08/257,449 Unlike appellants’ invention, however, Spangler’s illustrated embodiment of the collapsible container includes a cover 6 which lies between the sidewall 3 and the end walls 5 in the collapsed condition of the container as shown in Figure 3 of the patent drawings. According to the description in lines 73-84 on page 2 of the Spangler specification, the cover is detachable while retaining the capability of reattaching it. With the patentee’s cover attached to the container, appealed claim 1 differs from Spangler only by reciting that in the positions where the end walls lie parallel to the second sidewall, the end walls are “in engagement on” the second sidewall while claim 17 differs from Spangler only by reciting that the collapsed container has a thickness equal to the sum of the thicknesses of the bottom wall, the two sidewalls and one of the end walls. Appellants do not appear to argue that any other limitations in claims 1 and 17 differ from Spangler. Admittedly, Spangler does not expressly disclose that the elimination of the cover without providing for the reattachment of the cover to the container. However, it would -5-Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007