Appeal 2006-2032
Application 09/891,948
patents and would not have provided any suggestion to modify the heights of
the interior columns of any of the applied Apps patents as called for in
Appellant’s independent claims 1, 20, and 34-36.
The Examiner’s position that McGrath would somehow have
suggested providing a handle on the longer side walls of any of the cases of
the three applied Apps patents, thereby raising their heights or the heights of
the pylons along such walls to exceed the height of the interior columns, is
not supported by McGrath. McGrath does not teach or suggest a handle at
any location of the crate other than the end walls. Even assuming McGrath
would have suggested providing a contoured handle on the end walls (i.e.,
the shorter walls) of any of the applied Apps patents, this would not result in
the interior columns having a height less than the height of the longer
opposed walls, as recited in claim 1, the interior columns having a height
less than the height of the pylons, as recited in claims 20, 34, and 35, or the
at least one interior member having a height less than a greatest height of the
pair of opposed walls other than the pair of opposed walls having handles, as
required in claim 36.
Sauey, unlike the three applied Apps patents, is not concerned with
retaining articles having a height greater than the height of the side walls and
dividing walls and having a tendency to tilt if not adequately supported or
with vertically stacking tiers of cases of such articles, with the weight of the
upper cases being supported by the articles retained in the cases stacked
beneath said upper cases. Accordingly, the relative heights of the interior
dividing walls and box side walls taught by Sauey would have little, if any,
relevance to one of ordinary skill in the art designing a low depth bottle case
of the type disclosed in the applied Apps patents.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013