Appeal No. 1999-0402
Application No. 08/567,385
Notwithstanding this circumstance, the standing rejection
of claim 8 as being anticipated by Sere is sustainable in that
the claim language calling for “ribbing, extending vertically
from, and integral with, said bottom wall” is clearly readable
on Sere’s vertically extending partition walls 23, and in that
the claim language calling for the bottom wall to have a
plurality of regions “free of said ribbing” is clearly
readable on cross members 26, 28 and star-shaped members 22
that collectively define a bottom wall of the container that
is free of ribbing in certain regions, namely, those regions
that lie between partition walls 23. Appellants’ argument on
page 3 of the main brief that the partition walls 23 of Sere
are not integral with the members that make up the bottom wall
of Sere’s container is not well taken in view of Sere’s
express statement at column 6, lines
13-16, that the lower parts of the vertical partition walls
are integral with the crossbars. The only other pertinent
argument advanced by appellants against Sere is that there are
no regions of the bottom wall free of said ribbing (main
brief, paragraph spanning pages 3-4). This argument is not
well taken in that, as noted above, the regions between
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007