Appeal No. 2000-0845 Page 5
Application No. 08/617,829
continuous” ring, in view of the fact that any “member” that might be considered to be
formed by them is completely severed at seventeen places.
It therefore is our conclusion that the European Patent Application fails to disclose
or teach all of the subject matter recited in claim 24, and we will not sustain the Section
102 rejection of independent claim 24 or dependent claims 25-27.
Independent claim 34 stands rejected as being anticipated by Bakx. Looking to
Bakx’s Figure 1, we understand the examiner’s position to be that the inward edges of
upstanding end tabs 58 and 60 at the point where they intersect side panels 32 and 36,
and the outward edges of center recesses 38 at the side panels, together form the
required “means for cooperating with articles underlying one of the tiers of stacked articles
to help maintain the relative position of the sheet therewith,” in that they interlock with top
flanges 44 of the underlying articles. We are not persuaded that this position is in error by
the appellant’s argument on page 5 of the Brief (lines 25-30), particularly in view of the very
broad language of the claim.
The Section 102 rejection of claim 34 is sustained. Because the appellant has
chosen to allow dependent claims 35 and 36 to stand or fall with claim 34, from which they
depend (Brief, page 5, lines 8-10), the rejection of these claims also is sustained.
The Rejection Under Section 103
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007