Appeal No. 2005-1278 Page 13
Application No. 10/145,226
resting on the bottom wall 12. Each profile defines a rhomboidal configuration with
concave sidewalls displaying a series of small vertical ribs 33 for reinforcement and for
washing purposes. The profiles do not extend longitudinally along the length of the
bottom wall. Thus, claim 12, and claims 13 to 18, 26 and 27 dependent thereon, are not
anticipated by Jacques '342.
The anticipation rejection based on Overholt '054
We sustain the rejection of claims 12 to 19 and 25 to 31 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 102(e) as being clearly anticipated by Overholt '054 but not the rejection of claims 20
to 24.
The appellant argues (brief, pp. 11-12; reply brief, pp. 3) that Overholt '054 does
disclose the following limitations:
(1) opposed sidewalls having "a central portion with a substantially smooth,
non-apertured inner surface for contacting the object and reducing force thereagainst''
as set forth in claim 12;
(2) opposed sidewalls having an inner surface with "a bowed and substantially unbroken
central portion" as set forth in claim 20;
(3) opposed sidewalls or endwalls having "a central portion with a substantially smooth
and unbroken inner surface above the cutout'' as set forth in claim 25; and
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007