Ex Parte Giasi - Page 4




            Appeal No. 2004-1359                                                                              
            Application No. 09/875,831                                                                        

              width of the pallet’s grill structure and positioned to distribute the load along the grill     
              strips.  (Col. 2, ll. 13-29).  Frase also discloses that the pallet structure can be shipped    
              disassembled.  (Col. 2, ll. 29-32).  The Examiner found that Giasi discloses a pallet that      
              contains supporting means that are adhesively attached to the pallet through cutouts.           
              (Answer, p. 3).  Giasi discloses a pallet structure that is formed from at least two strips     
              forming a pallet body of cardboard construction material.  One of the strips of the pallet      
              body comprises circular cutout openings that are sized to seat the supporting posts, i.e.,      
              cardboard cores.  (Col. 2, ll. 31-42).  Giasi discloses that the supporting post are adhesively 
              attached to the pallet through the cutout openings.  Giasi also discloses that the pallet       
              structure can be shipped disassembled.  (Col. 3, ll. 1-23).  The Examiner concluded that it     
              would have been obvious to use the helical turns of corrugated board supporting post            
              described by Frase in a pallet containing cutout openings to seat the supporting post.          
              (Answer, p. 3).                                                                                 
                     Appellant argues that both Frase and Giasi adhesively attach the end of the              
              supporting post to the pallet and not the side of the foot adjacent to the end of the           
              supporting post.2  (Response, p. 3).                                                            




                      2  Appellant’s arguments in rebuttal to the Examiner’s rejection have been presented in 
                the Brief, Reply Brief and the reply to an office action filed March 5, 2002.                 
                                                      -4-                                                     




Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007