Appeal No. 1999-2226 Page 3
Application No. 08/582,678
forming a master frame and a plurality of modules that are separate from said master
frame;
placing said plurality of modules in said master frame; and
securing said plurality of modules to said master frame to form said pack tray.
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner as evidence of obviousness is:
Murphy5,103,976Apr. 14, 1992
The admitted prior art as stated on pages 1-2 of the instant specification (AAPA).
Claims 1-10, 20 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Murphy in view of AAPA.
As Appellant states on page 6 of his brief, there are three claim groupings. Claims 1-6, 8-
10 and 20 all stand or fall together; claims 7 and 21 are each to be treated separately. Therefore,
our discussion will focus on claim 1 as the broadest claim of the first group, and on claims 7 and
21; 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7)(1997).
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete exposition of the opposing
viewpoints expressed by the Appellant and by the Examiner concerning the above noted
rejections.
OPINION
We affirm the rejections of claims 1-6, 8-10, 20 and 21 for the reasons stated below.
However, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007