Appeal No. 2005-1486
Application No. 10/099,423 7
to commodities stored in a box would have furnished the artisan
with ample suggestion or motivation to provide such a cut-off
portion in any of the side walls of Welshenbach’s inner box A.
The appellants have not cogently explained, and it is not
apparent, why such a modification would appreciably reduce the
strength of the Welshenbach carton or lessen its suitability for
shipping articles such as nails, bolts, nuts and screws. The
appellants also have failed to cogently point out, and it is
again not evident, why a cut-out portion, appropriately
dimensioned and located depending on the nature of the
commodities stored in the Welshenbach box, would necessarily
result in spillage of the commodities. Indeed, the combined
teachings of Welshenbach and Kim would have suggested the use of
the Welshenbach carton for stackable commodities less likely to
spill (see Kim at column 4, lines 37 through 42, and Figures 2
and 3) than the exemplary loose commodities specified by
Welshenbach. Thus, the appellants’ position that the proposed
combination of Welshenbach and Kim rests on impermissible
hindsight is not well founded.
As so modified in view of Kim, the Welshenbach carton would
respond to all of the limitations in claim 1 including those
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007