Appeal No. 2005-1237
Application No. 10/227,631 8
II. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claims 4 through 7, 24
and 26 through 38 as being unpatentable over Koefelda in view of
Apps
The examiner concedes that Koefelda does not respond to the
limitation in independent claim 4 requiring a plurality of
central columns along a longitudinal centerline of the case and
the corresponding limitation in independent claim 31 requiring a
plurality of central columns extending upwardly from the bottom
floor portion. The examiner also allows that Koefelda may not
respond to the limitations in independent claim 24 requiring a
divider wall substantially perpendicular to the bottom floor
portion and extending into the container holding compartment and
the limitations in dependent claims 6 and 37 requiring the inner
handle member to include two curved surfaces defining two
container-retaining pockets. To account for these differences,
the examiner looks to Apps.
Apps is similar to Koefelda in that it too discloses a low
depth crate or case for holding and displaying beverage bottles.
Case 10, which like the Koefelda crates is integrally molded of
plastic, comprises four side walls, 12, 14, 16 and 18, a bottom
portion 20, a pair of handle portions 38 in the center of side
walls 14 and 18, and a plurality of vertical walls 29 and columns
or pylons 30 which define two rows of bottle retaining pockets
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007