Appeal No. 2000-1660 Page 4
Application No. 08/868,081
have led one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the
relevant teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed
invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d
1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and In re Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013,
1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
In the rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner
determined (answer, pp. 3-4) that Aylworth taught all the
claimed subject matter except for the engagement tabs having
angled portions as claimed (i.e., the first end panel having a
first back edge including first engagement tabs having a first
angled portion which projects inward towards the first inner
side thereon and the second end panel having a second back
edge including second engagement tabs having a second angled
portion which projects inward towards the second inner side).
The examiner then concluded that such differences would have
been obvious from White's teaching of elements 52 and 86 shown
in Figures 2 and 9 as having tabs 96 and 98.
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not
suggest the claimed subject matter. We agree.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007