Appeal No. 2003-0187
Application No. 09/134,109
receiving cradles” therein. The only structure we see in Figure 9
that is broadly V-shaped and may serve as a cradle is that seen
in the main box portion (1) of the tool case therein. However, it
is apparent from a full consideration of the Vasudeva patent that
this structure is merely the back side of the molded recess (15)
in the face of main box portion (1), as can be best seen in
Figures 3, 7 and 8 of the patent. Further, as is apparent from
Figures 9-11 of Vasudeva, the back side of the molded recess (15)
is intended to be covered by a tool receiving insert panel (10).
There is simply no indication in Vasudeva that the V-shaped
recesses seen in Figure 9 are intended to be “tool receiving
cradles” like those set forth in appellants’ claim 39, and
certainly no reason or suggestion therein as to why one of
ordinary skill in the art would consider using the V-shaped
recesses seen in Figure 9 of Vasudeva in a molded plastic tool
container like that of Hanson.
Thus, after considering the applied prior art references as
a whole, we have concluded that the examiner’s rejection of claim
39, and claims 41, 44, 47 and 48 which depend therefrom, under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Hanson in view of
Gühring or Vasudeva will not be sustained.
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007