Appeal No. 2005-1278 Page 22
Application No. 10/145,226
as set forth in claims 15, 27 and 30 and the concave shape of the inner surface of the
central portion as set forth in claim 19. The examiner then concluded that in view of the
teachings of ribs at the upper edge of the side walls in Jacques '342 it would have been
obvious to add such ribs to the inner surface of the side walls in Jacques '420 in order to
strengthen the inner surface to prevent the stress of impacts from creating stress cracks
or tears at the inner surface of the inner surface of the sidewalls as this portion of the
container is most susceptible to use and wear. The examiner also concluded that in
view of the teachings of a concave inner surface in Capper it would have been obvious
to provide a concave inner surface to the central portion of the side walls in Jacques
'420 to more closely conform to the curved shape of the objects stored within the
container.
In our view, the applied prior art contains no motivation, suggestion or teaching
that would have made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to have modified Jacques '420 so as to arrive at the subject
matter of claims 15, 19, 27 and 30. While Jacques '342 teaches ribs at the upper edge
of the side walls and Capper teaches a concave inner surface there is no incentive,
absent the appellant's own disclosure, to have modified Jacques '420 in the manner set
forth by the examiner.
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007