Appeal No. 97-4205
Application 08/562,853
panels are releasably secured (see column 1, line 64). We can
think of no circumstances under which the artisan, consistent
with the appellant's specification, would construe Luisada’s
releasable connection to correspond to the claimed means for
permanently securing.
Turning to the examiner’s contention that it would have been
obvious to permanently secure the panels of Luisada to the frame
structure in view of the teachings of Veenema, we observe that
the entire thrust of Luisada’s invention is to provide a
lightweight knockdown container wherein the various panels are
releasably held in assembled position on a pallet or base (see
column 1, lines 44-69). Thus, we do not believe that it would
have been obvious to make such a modification since to do so
would destroy the invention upon which Luisada was based, namely,
providing a knockdown container with releasably secured panels.
See Ex parte Hartmann, 186 USPQ 366, 367 (Bd.App. 1974).
Moreover, even if all the rather extensive modifications
proposed by the examiner were made, the claimed invention would
not result. That is, independent claim 1 does not simply require
that the various panels not be visually distinct from one other
as the examiner apparently believes. Instead, independent claim
1 expressly requires that the means for removably securing the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007