Appeal No. 97-4260
Application 08/445,660
only requires that they be non-symmetrical about at least one
axis. As for the requirement of a "non-hinge forming
arrangement", our previous conclusion that some of Cool's
bosses are in a "non-linear" arrangement carries with it the
conclusion that they are also in a "non-hinge forming"
arrangement, since in the portions of the specification quoted
previously, appellants give "non-hinge forming" the definition
which they contend should be given to "non-linear".
We will therefore sustain the rejection of claims 14 and
17, and of claim 15 which falls with 14 (brief, page 4).
Rejection (3)
The crux of this rejection, as stated on page 5 of the
examiner's answer, is that it would have been obvious "to have
formed the boss arrangement of Dresen et al. in a non-symme-
trical/major and minor boss arrangement as taught by Griffin
[as seen in Fig. 12]." Appellants argue on page 8 of the
brief that the rejection is improper because the bosses of
Griffin, e.g., those on each side of the center foot, are
symmetrical, presum-ably about the vertical center line of the
pallet. Considering the apparatus recited in claim 1 vis-a-
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007