Appeal No. 2004-0217
Application 09/824,544
bulk bag combination.” The examiner finds (see pages 2 and 3 in
the final rejection) that these limitations are met by either the
end fastening structure shown in Helton’s Figures 1 through 6 or
the end fastening structure shown in Helton’s Figures 7 and 9.
In this regard, the examiner submits that
the [Helton] tab (20 or part of 34) which extends into
the channel between the tabs 25 and 26, located over
the opening caused by the fold 27 (shown in Fig. 5), is
capable of being engaged by an appropriately configured
lifting device, such as one which will extend between
the vertical end portion 19 and either of the tabs
25,26 or such as one which will extend into such a
channel from one of the bottom openings. The examiner
further asserts that said tabs are capable of being
engaged by such a lifting device which is capable of
maneuvering the combination of a bulk bag with the
pallet of Helton [answer, page 5].
The contention that Helton’s insertable end structure is
capable of being engaged by some unspecified lifting device
extending through one of the bottom openings in the pallet is
somewhat far-fetched and completely lacking in factual support.
On the other hand, the examiner’s alternative position that the
insertable end structure is capable of being engaged by a lifting
device extending between vertical end portion 19 and the tabs 25,
26, e.g., by a forklift tine extending into a forklift
orifice/channel 28, arguably is more plausible. Ostensibly,
however, any such engagement would be incidental and fairly
minimal along one of the side edges of the insertable end
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007