Appeal No. 96-0610
Application 08/257,449
In any case, Friedrich suggests the omission of a cover or a
top for a collapsible rectangular container having sidewalls
and end walls all hinged to a bottom wall. According to
Friedrich:
[s]uch an arrangement allows the lower pivoted walls
to be dropped down first with the other walls
pivoted down on top of them so as to form a flat and
extremely com-pact assembly when collapsed. [Column
2, lines 13-17.]
Friedrich’s teaching of forming a flat and extremely
compact assembly of the container in its collapsed condition
in itself would have suggested the subject matter of claims 1
and 17. Moreover, this teaching would have suggested an
arrangement in which the hinges are at levels to permit the
sidewalls and the end walls to be pivoted to their collapsed
positions without leaving any void space especially between
the end walls and the underlying sidewall.
In light of the motivation for modifying Spangler’s
container as discussed supra, we are not persuaded by
appellants’ argument that the proposed modifications to
Spangler would “destroy the Spangler device for its intended
purposes” (brief, page 8). Certainly, the elimination of
Spangler’s cover and any void space between the pair of end
-7-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007