Appeal No. 2005-1294
Application No. 09/785,100
claimed crates from those of the prior art crates. However, the
appellant still has not demonstrated that the claimed
functionally defined display opening size and floor and panel
interior surfaces are patentably different from those of the
prior art crates. See the Request for Rehearing in its entirety.
The appellant’s reference to the conventional ring shape carrier
is of little or no moment since no structural difference between
the claimed crates and the prior art crates has been established.
Id. In this regard, we also note that the appellant has not
addressed our interpretation relating to hypothetical bottle
carriers such as those which conform to the shapes of the
interior surfaces of the prior art crates relied upon by the
examiner. Id. That is, since the bottle carrier can be in any
shape, including those conformed to the interior surfaces of the
prior art crates, and any size label can be attached anywhere in
the bottle carrier such that it is visible through the openings
of the prior art crates, we observe no patentable distinction
between the claimed and prior art crates.
The appellant states that “[c]larification and a chance to
further respond is requested, if the Board had envisioned a ring
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007