Appeal No. 2004-0217
Application 09/824,544
structure. Such limited engagement cannot reasonably be
construed as serving the purpose of lifting and maneuvering the
bulk bag combination as required by the insert member/means
limitations at issue. Thus, the examiner’s determination that
Helton meets these structural limitations, and is anticipatory
with respect to the modular pallet recited in claims 1 and 28, is
not well founded.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(b) rejection of independent claims 1 and 28, and dependent
claims 2 through 6, 8 through 21, 23 and 24, as being anticipated
by Helton.
SUMMARY
The decision of the examiner to reject claims 1 through 6, 8
through 21, 23, 24 and 28 is reversed.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007