Appeal No. 97-1948
Application 08/569,554
or suggest such an arrangement of additional lock-receiving
fittings or connectors.
Moreover, we observe that the container of Yurgevich (as
modified) does not have "exactly three stacking points" as
required in independent claims 1, 20 and 31 on appeal. Contrary
to the position taken by the examiner (answer, page 6), it is our
opinion that the language "exactly three stacking points" is
limiting and does, as appellants have argued, require that the
container of appellants' claims 1, 20 and 31 have "only three
stacking points," no more and no less (see, e.g., brief, pages 13
and 14). Since, by the examiners own understanding, the container
of Yurgevich (as modified) has four stacking points, for this
additional reason, it clearly differs from the container defined
in appellants' independent claims 1, 20 and 31 on appeal.
For the reasons set forth on pages 15 and 16 of appellants'
brief, we find that the container resulting from the exminer's
combination of Yurgevich and Grogan also differs from the
intermodal container defined in appellants' claims 5, 20 and 30
on appeal. Like appellants (brief, page 15), we recognize that
the container of Yurgevich (as modified)
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007