Ex Parte Burra et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Sep 12, 2007

10098801 (B.P.A.I. Sep. 12, 2007)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte JAMES P. BURRA,
SUSAN J. SHERMAN and
CARLOS A. CASTEREJON
____________

Appeal 2007-1829
Application 10/098,801
Technology Center 3700
____________

Decided: September 12, 2007
____________

Before WILLIAM F. PATE, III, TERRY J. OWENS, and
ANTON W. FEETING, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILLIAM F. PATE, III, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This is an appeal from the final rejection of claims 1-21. These are
the only claims in the application.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. §§ 6 and 134.
Appeal 2007-1829
Application 10/098,801

The claimed invention is directed to a transportation case for an
automotive engine or transmission. The case includes a one-piece molded
plastic base and a one-piece molded plastic lid. At least one of the base or
lid includes a plurality of vertically extending semi-circular stiffening ribs.
Claim 1 reproduced below, is further illustrative of the claimed
subject matter.
1. A transportation case for an automotive engine, transmission,
or the like, comprising:

a one-piece molded plastic base including a substantially
uniform wall thickness, comprising an outer peripheral wall
connected to a formed bottom to provide an upwardly opening
space, the formed bottom defining a wall for receiving an
automotive engine, transmission, or the like, and having
opposite longitudinally extending feet for resting on a support
surface and a forklift opening between the feet;

a one-piece molded plastic lid including a substantially
uniform wall thickness comprising an outer peripheral wall
connected to a top wall, the lid outer peripheral wall being
received on the base outer peripheral wall to close the upwardly
opening space,

at least one of the base and lid including plural vertically
extending semi-circular stiffening ribs enabling plural
transportation cases to be stacked with feet of one
transportation case being supported on a top wall of another
transportation case.
2
Appeal 2007-1829
Application 10/098,801

The references of record relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Maker U.S. 4,678,084 Jul. 07, 1987
Lemery U.S. 4,735,310 Apr. 05, 1988
Robbins, III (Robbins) U.S. 4,890,757 Jan. 02, 1990
Kidd U.S. 5,011,011 Apr. 30, 1991

Also of record in the appeal is a declaration filed pursuant to 37 CFR
§ 1.132 by an inventor, James P. Burra.
Claims 1-21 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable
over Lemery in view of Kidd, Maker and Robbins.

ISSUES
In addition to arguing that it would not have been obvious to combine
Maker and Kidd with the disclosure of Lemery, Appellants have argued that
Robbins would not have suggested to one of ordinary skill that semi-circular
ribs be used on the engine transport containers. Accordingly, the sole issue
for our consideration is whether the Appellant’s have established that the
Examiner erred in rejecting the claimed subject matter under § 103.
3
Appeal 2007-1829
Application 10/098,801

FINDINGS OF FACT
The following are our findings of fact with respect to the scope and
content of the prior art and the differences between the prior art and the
claimed subject matter.
Robbins discloses a plastic article composed of flexible non-self
supporting webs disposed between adjacent pairs of ribs with the ribs and
webs cooperating one with the other, to provide a self-supporting sidewall.
Robbins makes clear that the webs extending between adjacent pairs of ribs
are thin, non-self supporting films of plastic material. Robbins discloses that
his ribs may be formed of any cross-sectional configuration. Robbins
mentions rectangular, semi-circular, triangular or other shapes as long as the
ribs maintain a capacity not to readily bend, deform or flex. (See col. 2, ll.
37-40.) A preferred material for Robbins is high density polyethylene. The
web portions of the articles made according to the Robbins disclosure are on
the order of 1-40 mils. See col. 6, l. 21.
It is undisputed that Lemery, Kidd and Maker disclose plastic
transportation cases for transporting large objects such as engines,
transmissions, drive belts, and turbochargers. All three disclosures illustrate
that it is common in the art of plastic shipping containers to utilize ribs of
rectangular or trapezoidal cross section.

OPINION
We are in agreement with Appellants that the disclosure of Robbins
would not have taught one of ordinary skill to make the reinforcing ribs in a
plastic engine container of semi-circular rather than rectangular or
trapezoidal cross section as disclosed in Lemery, Kidd or Maker. We must
4
Appeal 2007-1829
Application 10/098,801

emphasize that the Robbins disclosure is directed to reinforcing webs of
plastic material that are not self-supporting and are merely films. It is our
view that a teaching for reinforcing webs with a material thickness of
preferably about 1-40 mils is not readily applicable to reinforcing the
structural plastic used to manufacture engine containers. For this reason,
one of ordinary skill would not have found it obvious to modify the
rectangular or trapezoidal ribs of the engine containers to form the ribs of a
semi-circular cross section based on the disclosure of Robbins.
CONCLUSION
The examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness
of claims 1-21. The rejection of all of the claims on appeal is reversed.

REVERSED

vsh

WOOD, PHILLIPS, VANSANTEN,
CLARK & MORTIMER
SUITE 3800
500 WEST MADISON STREET
CHICAGO IL 60661

5