Appeal No. 97-1948
Application 08/569,554
Reference is made to the examiner's answer (Paper No. 20) for
the examiner's reasoning in support of the above-noted rejection.
Appellants' arguments against the examiner's rejection are found in
appellants' brief (Paper No. 19, filed September 18, 1996).
OPINION
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this appeal
has included a careful assessment of appellants' specification and
claims, the applied prior art references, and the respective
positions advanced by appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we have reached the conclusion that the examiner's
rejection of the appealed claims before us on appeal will not be
sustained. Our reasons follow.
Looking at the examiner's combination of Yurgevich and
Grogan, we share appellants' view (brief, pages 6-16) that even
if these references are combined in the manner urged by the
examiner, the resulting intermodal shipping container would not
be the same as that now claimed by appellants in the claims
before us on appeal. The intermodal container resulting from
providing the container of Yurgevich with fittings at the corners
of each frame (18, 26) so as to define four stacking points as in
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007