Ex parte HALE - Page 10

          Appeal No. 96-1604                                                          
          Application 08/272,906                                                      

          and the application of impermissible hindsight, since it does               
          not appear from the disclosure of Hancock that any similar                  
          diametrical expansion is contemplated for the knockdown container           
          thereof.  Thus, we cannot sustain the examiner's rejection of               
          appealed independent claims 6 and 22, or of claims 7 through 9              
          dependent from claim 6, under 35 U.S.C.  103 for this reason               
               Moreover, it is also not apparent from the disclosure of               
          Hancock that the H-shaped connector thereof includes "grooves so            
          shaped and dimensioned to form an interference fit" with the                
          longitudinal edges of the panels in the manner disclosed and                
          claimed by appellant.  The H-shaped connectors and edging strips            
          of Hancock "are arranged to be snap fitted together" (column 4,             
          line 54), which would not necessarily result in an interference             
          fit.  Furthermore, the H-shaped connectors of Hancock do not                
          engage the longitudinal edges of molded sidewalls as disclosed              
          and claimed by appellant, rather they engage an "edging strip"              
          that is crimped onto the edges of the panels to be joined.  Thus,           
          even assuming arguendo that the teachings of Hancock could be               
          combined with those of Sproull, the container structure resulting           
          therefrom would not include the longitudinal edges of the molded            


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

Last modified: November 3, 2007