Appeal 2006-2032
Application 09/891,948
applied Apps patents are concerned in stacked low depth cases is very
problematic and that the three applied Apps patents seek to avoid such
tilting. One skilled in the art of low depth beverage bottle cases would also
have understood from the three Apps patents that column and pylon heights
of approximately one-third the height of the bottles to be retained in the case
are sufficient to stabilize the bottles to avoid tilting, as long as the bottles fit
snugly in the bottle retaining pockets, and that column and pylon heights of
slightly greater than one-third the height of the bottles are sufficient to
stabilize the bottles, even without a snug fit between the bottles and pockets.
All of the Apps patents seek to use the lowest possible column, wall and
pylon heights to maximize bottle visibility and minimize manufacturing
costs while still providing sufficient stability to the bottles. Apps ‘279 and
Apps ‘793 further seek to provide a case having sufficient effective height
that a snug fit between the bottles and the pockets is not required. One
skilled in the art would also have inferred that Apps ‘279 and Apps ‘793,
like Apps ‘002, desire a substantially flat upper surface within the bottle
retaining pockets to accommodate bottles of varying diameter and bottom
configuration.
Hammett uses a wall height of over half the height of the cans, a
relatively snug fit between the cans and the spacers, and a specially
contoured can centering tapered annular seat to prevent sliding and hold the
cans in their respective seating areas even if the tray is inclined. Hammett is
not concerned with providing a substantially flat upper surface of the can
seating areas or accommodating cans having different diameters or bottom
rim contours. Hammett therefore utilizes a can retention structure that is
very different from the bottle retention structures of the three applied Apps
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013