Appeal No. 2001-0314
Application No. 09/102,677
its cab cover component, would not have suggested adding to
Battle’s container a top cover panel having four lateral
perimetrical edges which are overlapped and positioned below
the upper edges of the container walls when the walls are
pulled snugly against the vehicle in order to prevent damage to
the top of the vehicle. Indeed, Battle’s stated objectives of
providing a container which is unitary and designed to
completely encase the vehicle and to deter flotation seemingly
would have led the artisan away from such changes. It
therefore is apparent that the only suggestion for combining
the references in the manner proposed by the examiner stems
from impermissible hindsight knowledge derived from the
appellants’ disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) of claims 8 and 15, and dependent claims 3, 9, 10 and
16, as being unpatentable over Battle in view of Tall and
Lohse, or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 5,
and dependent claims 6 and 7, as being unpatentable over Battle
in view of Tall, Lohse and Chiang.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007