Appeal No. 2006-2626
Application No. 10/315,175
lines 72-75). From the disclosure of Hickson of having a tongue and groove
connection for use in stacking the containers, and the broadly described and shown
ribs and depressions disclosed by appellant, we find that the tongue 2 and groove 3
on each container meets the claimed rib and depression. From the disclosure of
using a tongue and groove arrangement to provide for stacking of containers, we
find that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to stack
containers like those of Keffer, if so desired, using a mating tongue or rib and
depression arrangement like that taught in Hickson
We are not persuaded by appellant's assertion that the free standing
container of Keffer teaches away from making the container stackable for the
reasons advanced, supra, and because the bottom container of Hickman has a flat
bottom 24, which we find will make the free standing containers stackable.
Observations and Remarks
Because we are primarily a Board of review, we have only applied the newly
located prior art against the independent claims. We leave it to the examiner to
determine whether the references to Keffer and Hickson, alone or in combination
with Roderick, Lin, Ovadia and Dunn, or any other prior art, would have suggested
to an artisan the language of any, or all, of the remaining claims.
This decision contains a new ground of rejection pursuant to 37 CFR
' 41.50(b) (effective September 13, 2004). 37 CFR ' 41.50(b) provides "[a] new
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007