Appeal 2006-2032
Application 09/891,948
For the above reasons, we conclude that:
1. the combined teachings of Apps ‘279, Hammett, McGrath, and Sauey
would not have suggested modifying the low depth bottle case of Apps ‘279
to form the interior columns 30 with a height less than the height of the
columns 30 disposed along the sidewalls 12, 14, 16, 18;
2. the combined teachings of Apps ‘793, Hammett, McGrath, and Sauey
would not have suggested modifying the low depth bottle case of Apps ‘793
to form the columns 52, 54, 56 with a height less than the height of the
pylons 24, 26, 28, 30, 32 along the side walls of the case; and
3. the combined teachings of Apps ‘002, Hammett, McGrath, and Sauey
would not have suggested modifying the cross-stacking bottle case of Apps
‘002 to form the interior columns 30 with a height less than the height of the
columns 30 disposed along the sidewalls 12, 14, 16, 18.
In light of the above, none of the Examiner’s rejections can be
sustained.
11
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013