Appeal No. 2005-1826
Application No. 10/210,046
Figures 8 and 9 in the Kanter reference clearly show that
the non-rectangular corner supports 42c are defined by the
container’s panel members and that each extends between adjacent
panels (i.e. panel members) to provide stacking support for
containers placed thereon and seats in a recess cut into a
reinforcing section of a panel member. This is all that is
required by the corner support member limitations recited in
claim 1. The appellant’s argument that Kanter’s rectangular
corner supports fail to meet these limitations, while arguably
correct, is of no moment since the subject limitations find full
response in Kanter’s non-rectangular supports 42c and because the
claim does not exclude, and is not otherwise inconsistent with,
the rectangular corner supports.
Hence, the appellant’s position that the subject matter
recited in independent claim 1, and dependent claims 2, 3, 5 and
7, distinguishes over that disclosed by Kanter is not well taken.
Consequently, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
rejection of claims 1-3, 5 and 7 as being anticipated by Kanter.
IV. The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 4 as being
unpatentable over Kanter in view of Hamilton
Claim 4 depends from claim 1 and recites that at least one
of the corner support members has a top segment shaped as a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007