Appeal 2006-2032
Application 09/891,948
According to Apps ‘279, the low height of the case sidewalls and
columns of Apps ‘002 limits the range of bottle diameters that can be
retained in a stable stack because a generally snug fit is required between the
bottle pocket and the bottle (Apps ‘279, col. 3, ll. 46-50). Apps ‘793
similarly points out that, because of the low height and substantially flat
upper surface across the bottle retaining pockets of the case of Apps ‘002, a
generally snug fit between the bottles and pockets is required, thereby
limiting the range of bottle diameters that can be retained in the stack (Apps
‘279, col. 3, ll. 43-48). Apps ‘793 also points out that the newer two-liter
bottles having smaller diameters and slightly greater height do not perform
ideally within the pockets of the low depth two liter case of Apps ‘002
(Apps ‘793, col. 3, ll. 57-60).
Apps ‘279 addresses the bottle diameter limitation problem of Apps
‘002 by increasing the height of the columns 30, both along the sidewalls
and in the interior of the case, to extend above the bottom portion 20 to a
distance slightly greater than one third the height of the bottles to be
retained in the case. The taller columns increase the lateral stability of the
bottles within bottle retaining pockets 32. Therefore, a greater range of
bottle diameters can be accommodated because a fit as snug as required in
prior art cases is no longer necessary (Apps ‘279, col. 5, ll. 29-40). Apps
‘279, like Apps ‘002, is concerned with increasing the effective height of the
case while maintaining high bottle visibility and low manufacturing costs
(Apps ‘279, col. 5, ll. 33-35).
The columns 52, 54, 56 of Apps ‘793 are the same height as the
pylons 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 along the side walls (Figs. 2, 3).
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013