Appeal No. 2005-2316
Application No. 10/685,151
matter. We perceive convincing merit in this exposition. For
example, as correctly indicated by the Examiner, an artisan would
have been motivated to form Lehman's feed storage container from a
plurality of panels that can be disassembled from one another so as
to render the container collapsible in view of Stonestreet's
teachings of a feed container having these features and the
advantages associated therewith (e.g., see lines 36-44 in column 3
of Stonestreet). Similarly, the artisan would have been motivated
to provide Lehman's support structure with a ladder extension and
foot platform in order to render the feed container easily and
safely accessible in accordance with the teachings of Tousignant
(e.g., see lines 54-61 in column 3 and lines 37-50 in column 5).
In light of the foregoing and for the reasons expressed in
the answer as well as the final Office action, it is our ultimate
determination that the reference evidence adduced by the Examiner
establishes a prima facie case of obviousness which the appellant
has failed to successfully rebut with argument or evidence of
nonobviousness. We hereby sustain, therefore, the Examiner's § 103
rejections of claims 4, 5, and 7-9 as being unpatentable over
Lehman in view of Stonestreet and Tousignant, of claims 10, 12-15
and 17 as being unpatentable over Lehman in view of Tousignant,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007