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 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007