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 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007