Appeal No. 2004-0572
Application 09/849,315
Third, the record contains no evidence that such a result would
have been unexpected to an artisan with ordinary skill. See In
re Freeman, 474 F.2d 1318, 1324, 177 USPQ 139, 143 (CCPA 1973).
For the reasons set forth above, it is our determina-
tion that the reference evidence adduced by the examiner estab-
lishes a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to appealed
claims 1 and 9 which the appellant has failed to successfully
rebut with argument and/or evidence of nonobviousness. For
analogous reasons, we reach the same determination with respect
to appealed independent claim 24. We shall sustain, therefore,
the examiner’s § 103 rejection of these claims as being unpatent-
able over Miller in view of Pignataro.
As for the other dependent claims on appeal, it would
have been obvious for the artisan to load, stack and handle
pallets as required by these claims in view of the previously
discussed palletizing disclosure of Miller (i.e., again see
lines 46-63 in column 7). We do not perceive and the appellant
does not point to any specific feature in any of these claims
which is not taught or would not have been suggested by the
applied prior art. More specifically, the appellant argues that
12
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007