Appeal No. 97-4151
Application 08/379,181
prior
art if the rejection under § 112, second paragraph, were
overcome. On the other hand, we do not consider that claims
1, 8 to 10 and 18 to 20 are so indefinite that their rejection
under § 103 should not be treated on the merits, and will
therefore proceed to consider rejection (1), supra.
Phibbs discloses in Fig. 1 a rectangular container 10
which is divided into several compartments by partitions
(dividers) 16 "for receiving various packaged or bottled
items" (col. 2, lines 4 and 5). Such items 37 are shown in
Fig. 2 as being boxes of washing powder and starch, and
bottles of bleach and fabric softener. Trombly discloses a
rectangular container having double walls of clear material
between which a decorative insert 13 may be placed. The basis
of the rejection is stated on pages 3 and 4 of the examiner's
answer as:
In the embodiment of figure 1 [of Phibbs] an
organizer is disclosed comprising a carrier made of
plastic with three compartments defined by divider
16. Trays 17 are provided in one of the
compartments which is considered [the] equivalent
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007