Ex parte CLARK et al. - Page 5

          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                 
               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              


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007