Appeal No. 2004-0572
Application 09/849,315
the examiner has reached a conclusion of obviousness regarding
dependent claims 2, 11, 14 and 15 “without any evidence or
reason” (Brief, page 17). This is incorrect. For example,
Miller’s aforenoted disclosure of palletizing to facilitate
handling with fork lift trucks (see column 7, line 51-53) plainly
would have suggested the claim 14 feature of handling loaded
pallets with a fork lift truck. Similarly, there is no
discernable merit in the appellant’s argument that the features
of claims 10 and 14 are contrary to the applied references
(Brief, page 18). It is clear that Pignataro’s disclosure at
lines 51-64 of column 3 would have suggested removing sidewalls
per claim 10 and stacking without hardware per claim 13.
We also shall sustain, therefore, the examiner’s § 103
rejection of claims 2, 10, 11 and 13-15 as being unpatentable
over Miller in view of Pignataro.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s § 103
rejection of all appealed claims.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed.
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007