Appeal No. 2005-1826
Application No. 10/210,046
reinforcing sections, the bottom sections, the score lines and
the cutout is reasonable on its face and not disputed by the
appellant. The appellant does contend, however, that the
rejection of claim 1 is unsound because the Kanter container
lacks response to the limitations in the claim pertaining to the
plurality of corner support members (see pages 4 and 5 in the
main brief). The various arguments advanced by the appellant in
support of this position are unpersuasive because they are not
(1) commensurate with the relatively broad scope of the corner
support member limitations or (2) directed to the particular
corner support structure disclosed by Kanter which is relied on
by the examiner to meet these limitations (see pages 4 and 5 in
the main brief).
More particularly, the Kanter container includes four corner
supports 40:
As best illustrated in FIGS. 1, 2, 3, and 4,
corner supports 40 are provided adjacent each corner
26, 28, 30, and 32 to improve stacking strength. The
corner supports 40 reinforce each of the corners 26,
28, 30, and 32 and provide a second support surface in
addition to the tops of the corners for supporting a
container stacked on top. While all corners of the
container 10 are shown with a corner support 40, it is
readily understood that other embodiments having less
than all corners reinforced are possible.
Multiple configurations for the corner supports 40
are contemplated, two particular preferred
configurations being illustrated: a substantially
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007