Appeal No. 2005-1237
Application No. 10/227,631 10
In the present case, the combined teachings of Koefelda and
Apps would have provided the artisan with ample suggestion or
motivation to modify the Koefelda crate in view of Apps in the
manner proposed by the examiner. The disclosures of these
references demonstrate that beverage cases having either two or
three rows are art recognized design alternatives. In this
regard, both references teach that the crates or cases
respectively disclosed therein may be made to accommodate
different arrays of bottles (see Koefelda at column 10, lines 3
through 11; and Apps at column 4, lines 15 through 20). The
combined teachings of Koefelda and Apps also would have suggested
providing the Koefelda crate with central columns, divider walls
and curved column surfaces of the sort disclosed by Apps for the
self-evident benefits of bottle stability afforded thereby. The
appellants’ argument that the proposed reference combination is
unsound because the Koefelda crate is designed for single serve
bottles while the Apps case is made for larger two or three liter
bottles is not convincing. Both references indicate that the
crates/cases disclosed therein can be adapted for bottles of
different size (see Koefelda, for example, at column 2, lines 51
through 60; and Apps, for example, at column 4, lines 15 through
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007