Appeal No. 2005-1294
Application No. 09/785,100
First, the appellant argues that the claimed functional
limitations are not taught by the prior art references. See the
Request for Rehearing, pages 3 and 4. Specifically, the
appellant argues that the prior art references do not teach the
claimed functional limitations relating to the size of the
display openings (i.e., “sized to reveal labels on the bottle
carries [sic., carriers] for displaying the bottle carriers in a
loaded crate”) recited in claims 1 and 2 and to the interior
shape of the floor or panel (for supporting bottle carriers)
recited in claims 1, 2, 15, 16, 28 and 33. Id.
As indicated at pages 2 and 7 of the Decision, the claimed
subject matter is directed to low depth nestable display crates.
This determination is consistent with the examiner’s
determination at page 10 of the Answer that:
Appellant doesn’t broadly claim the combination of a
crate and bottle carriers. Appellant’s claims are much
broader and are directed to the broad invention of a
bottle crate intended for use with bottle carriers.
However, rather than reciting the structures of the claimed
crates, the appellant relies on functional limitations to define
the novel aspect of the claimed crates, e.g., defining the crate
in terms of intended use with bottle carriers. See the
Decision, page 7. Specifically, we stated (id.) that:
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007