Appeal No. 97-1948
Application 08/569,554
the container of Grogan, does not provide a container as claimed
by appellants, since the additional, lock-receiving fittings (50)
pointed to by the examiner in Yurgevich (as modified) are not
"spaced from said stacking points so as to be independent
thereof," as required in appellants' independent claims 1, 9, 20,
26 and 31 on appeal. Based on appellants' disclosure (pages 5, 10
and 11) and the arguments made in the brief (pages 8-11), we
understand the language of the claims on appeal to require the
additional lock-receiving fittings (claims 1, 20, 26 and 31) and
the "pair of said connectors in said bottom wall" which are set
forth in claim 9 as being "spaced from said stacking points and
are independent thereof," to be "not associated with stacking
points" of the container (specification, page 5) and/or "not
located at a stacking frame and... therefore not associated with
vertical stacking posts or an upper crossmember" (specification
pages 10-11). Accordingly, we interpret the language "spaced
from said stacking points so as to be independent thereof" in
claims 1, 20, 26 and 31, and similar language in claim 9 on
appeal, to be -- spaced from all of said stacking points of said
container so as to be independent of all of said stacking points
thereof --. It is clear that neither Yurgevich nor Grogan teach
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007