Appeal No. 2005-0664 Page 5
Application No. 09/840,278
fastened to the body 1. Ratcliff, on the other hand, discloses two covers which are both
latched to a tray in the lower segment 13. Neither reference teaches or suggests
providing a container comprising first and second inner lid portions both hinged to the
base portion and the cover portion and with the first and second inner lid portions
having first and second latches for engaging the first and second inner lid portions to a
respective one of the base portion and cover portion. Accordingly, we find no
suggestion in the combined teachings of the references to modify Daneshvar to provide
a latch on wall B for engaging wall B to the upper lid 2 and a latch on wall A for
engaging wall A to the body 1 to arrive at the subject matter of claim 4. We therefore
cannot sustain the rejection of claim 4 or of claims 2, 3, 5-7 and 18 which depend from
claim 4.
The examiner’s application of Takama and Petruzzi provides no cure for the
deficiency of the combination of Daneshvar and Ratcliff. It thus follows that we also
cannot sustain the rejections of claims 6-8, 19 and 20 as being unpatentable over
Daneshvar in view of Ratcliff and Takama and claim 9 as being unpatentable over
Daneshvar in view of Ratcliff and Petruzzi.
The examiner’s rejection of claims 10, 11 and 16 as being unpatentable over
Takama in view of Spencer and Daneshvar is grounded in part on the examiner’s
position that it would have been obvious to modify the dovetail tenons 22 or 32 of
Takama’s partition boards 2 or sub-partition boards 3 to add recessed portions in the
end faces thereof and to add corresponding tabs in the walls which receive the dovetail
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007