Appeal No. 2005-1395
Application No. 10/347,334
container by a person who then walks through the second container
to unload cargo from the first container.
Appealed claims 1-9 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as being unpatentable over Black in view of Bennett.
In accordance with the grouping of claims set forth at
page 5 of appellant's principal brief, claims 1 and 3-5 stand or
fall together, as do claims 6 and 8-9.
We have thoroughly reviewed each of appellant's arguments
for patentability. However, we are in complete agreement with
the examiner that the claimed subject matter would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
§ 103 in view of the applied prior art. Accordingly, we will
sustain the examiner's rejection for essentially those reasons
expressed in the Answer, and we add the following primarily for
emphasis.
There is no dispute that Black, like appellant, discloses a
method of transporting tires by loading the tires into containers
and then unloading the tires from the means of transportation.
Appellant does not argue that "Black does not teach removing
tires from the vehicle, but it is Applicant's position that Black
does not teach or suggest that the tires are removed from his
containers while the containers remain in the vehicle" (sentence
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007