Appeal Number: 2006-1404
Application Number: 09/571,803
examiner’s argument regarding the handle having a recessed area
is not pertinent to that limitation.
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection of claims 4 and 16
over Czala in view of van Berkel and Walker.
Claims 5, 26 and 30
The examiner asserts that Czala modified by van Berkel and
Walker render obvious a handle that extends generally vertically
between at least two locations at which it is attached to the
tray, but the examiner provides no explanation as to why or how
one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the
references to arrive at such a configuration (answer, page 25).
Consequently, we reverse the rejection of claims 5, 26
and 30 over Czala in view of van Berkel and Walker.
Claims 10, 11 and 14
The examiner’s argument regarding claims 10, 11 and 14 is
the same as that set forth with respect to the rejections over
Reussenzehn, alone or in combination with van Berkel (answer,
page 8). The rejection of claims 10, 11 and 14 over Czala in
view of van Berkel and Walker is reversed for the reasons given
above regarding the rejections over Reussenzehn, alone or in
combination with van Berkel.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007