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
alone.
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
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007