Appeal No. 96-3999 Page 3
Application No. 08/395,719
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a stackable container.
An understanding of the invention can be derived from a reading
of exemplary claim 1, a copy of which appears in the appendix to
this decision.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the
examiner as evidence of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
and obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 are:
Bourcart 2,663,450 Dec. 22, 1953
Westgate 3,018,931 Jan. 30, 1962
Pepicelli 4,294,924 Oct. 13, 1981
(Pepicelli)
Reference made of record by this panel of the Board is:
Torras 2,077,027 Apr. 13, 1937
Claim 1 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as being
anticipated by Bourcart.
Claims 1, 3 and 6 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over Pepicelli in view of Westgate.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by
the examiner and the appellant regarding the § 102(b) and § 103
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007