Appeal No. 2005-1059 Page 3
Application No. 09/836,045
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the final
rejection and answer for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections
and to the brief and reply brief for the appellant's arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellant's specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
The Anticipation Rejections
Each of the references relied on by the examiner in the anticipation rejections
discloses a low depth bottle case or crate comprising, inter alia, a wall structure
including a first pair of opposed walls (e.g., side walls 12 and 16 in Apps ‘874, Apps ‘002
and Apps ‘176) and a second pair of opposed walls (e.g., end walls 14 and 18 in Apps
‘874, Apps ‘002 and Apps ‘176), interior columns (30 in Apps ‘874, Apps ‘002 and Apps
‘176) and a plurality of interior divider walls (e.g., walls 29 in Apps ‘874, Apps ‘002 and
Apps ‘176), extending between the columns and between the columns and the wall
structure so as to cooperate with the columns and wall structure to form bottle receiving
pockets. The source of the dispute in this case between the appellant and the examiner
appears to be that each of the divider walls (e.g., 29) of each of the applied references
is a single wall, not a double wall as disclosed by the appellant, and thus, according to
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007