Appeal No. 2005-1395
Application No. 10/347,334
remain on the truck in Bennett since this is described as the
undesirable prior art method at column 1, lines 34-37 of Bennett"
(page 7 of principal brief, first paragraph). However, although
Bennett may describe such a method as undesirable, the fact
remains that such a technique was within the prior art.
Likewise, while appellant contends that Black describes
difficulties associated with leaving the containers in the
vehicle, such method remains in the prior art. Appellant has
proffered no objective evidence that such difficulties are
unobviously avoided by the present method.
Appellant also submits that "[i]t is not a moot point that
Black compresses his tires in his containers, since one could not
walk through Black's compressed container having tires therein"
(page 3 of Reply Brief, first paragraph). However, one could not
walk through appellant's containers having tires therein, whether
they be in a compressed state or not.
As a final point, we note that appellant bases no argument
upon objective evidence of nonobviousness, such as unexpected
results, which would serve to rebut the strong prima facie case
of obviousness established by the examiner.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007