Appeal No. 96-3002
Application 08/164,295
inner and outer tanks or the advantages associated
therewith.
Appellants cite a number of cases to the effect that the
suggestion to combine the references cannot be derived from
appellants’ own disclosure, and that there must be a suggestion
in the prior art of the desirability of combining the references.
After fully considering the record in light of the arguments
presented in appellants’ brief and reply brief, and in the
examiner’s answer, we conclude that the subject matter recited in
claims 1 and 15 is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
We do not agree with appellants that there is no suggestion
in the prior art to combine Coleman and Ata. As the examiner
points out on page 5 of his answer, Ata specifically discloses at
column 1, lines 15 to 18 and 51 to 63, the provision of
supporting legs 18 on the bottom of a container, and upwardly
extending projections (leg positioners) 20 on the upper surface
of the container, so that the container can be stacked with a
second like container. Ata also teaches that the stacking of
containers is desirable and advantageous, in that it “allows the
use of a base unit and a recyclable top unit,” and “also results
in a saving in warehouse space.” See column 3, lines 18 to 31.
In view of this teaching of Ata, we consider that it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide the
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007