Appeal No. 2006-2626
Application No. 10/315,175
of Blowers are generally consistent with the definition of a pin because of the pins
short, pointed shape and a head portion. We similarly find that the pin 20 of
Blowers is not consistent with the definition of a rib for the same reasons; i.e., the
short, pointed shape and head portion. Because Blowers does not describe a rib as
recited in claim 1, we find that upon combining the teachings of Keffer and
Blowers, that the prior art as a whole fails to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness of claim 1. In addition because each of the additional independent
claims 8, 15 and 21 also require ribs, we cannot sustain the rejection of claims 1-3,
6-9, 15, 16 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Keffer in
view of Blowers.
We are also unable to sustain the rejections of dependent claims 4, 5, 10-12,
14, and 17-19 because even though the additional references relied upon by the
examiner would have suggested to an artisan the features relied upon in those
claims, the additional references to Roderick, Lin, Ovadia and Dunn fail to make
up for the deficiencies of the basic combination of Keffer and Blowers.
New Ground of Rejection
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 41.50 (b) we enter a new Ground of
Rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 15 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Keffer in view of Hickson, USP 3,627,393, issued December 14,
1971. This reference was located by the Board.
As noted, supra, Keffer fails to disclose the claimed ribs and depressions.
Hickson discloses a series of stacked containers 1, labeled as A-G in figure 4. As
shown in figure 1, each container has a tongue 2 which engages groove 3 (col. 2,
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007