Appeal No. 97-3195
Application 08/387,419
clearly been motivated to make this modification simply to
enhance the pallet of Sanders with a well known feature for
protecting strapping that may be used therewith, as explained by
Griffin.
The argument of appellant (main brief, pages 17 through 19,
and reply brief, pages 6 through 8) does not persuade us of error
on the part of the examiner in rejecting claim 4 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a). Contrary to appellant’s view (main brief, page 18), we
earlier pointed out that the channels of Griffin fairly
correspond to banding slots, as set forth in claim 4. We don’t
agree with appellant that the applied patents address products
(pallets) different from a divider (main brief, page 19) since
the pallets are capable of acting as a divider. In particular,
it is noted that Griffin (Fig. 10) reveals the well known use in
the art of a pallet (upper shipping tray 76) acting as a divider.
We are also not in accord with the view advocated by appellant
(main brief, page 19) that the references lack suggestion for the
combination of their teachings. We refer to our analysis above
for an understanding of the suggestion that one having ordinary
skill in the art would derived from the applied teachings for
their combination. Again contrary to the viewpoint set forth in
10
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007