Ex Parte Koefelda et al

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Jul 29, 2004

09626517 (B.P.A.I. Jul. 29, 2004)

1
The opinion in support of the decision being entered today
was not written for publication and is not binding precedent
of the Board.
Paper No. 22
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________
BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
__________
Ex parte GERALD R. KOEFELDA
and WILLIAM P. APPS.
__________
Appeal No. 2004-1603
Application 09/626,517
__________
ON BRIEF
__________
Before PAK, DELMENDO, and JEFFREY T. SMITH, Administrative Patent
Judges.
PAK, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
This is a decision on an appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from
the examiner’s final rejection of claims 1 through 23 and 25
through 29, which are all of the claims pending in the present
application.
Appeal No. 2004-1603
Application No. 09/626,517
2
APPEALED SUBJECT MATTER
The subject matter on appeal is directed to a bottle crate
particularly designed for, inter alia, efficient automated
handling, durability and strength. See the specification, pages
1 and 2. Further details of the appealed subject matter are
recited in representative claims 1, 12, 20, 28 and 29 which are
reproduced below:
1. A crate for bottles comprising:
a floor member; and
first and second pairs of opposed sidewalls integrally
formed with the floor member, each sidwall including a side band
member defined by an upper edge and lower edge, the lower edge
spaced above the floor member by a predetermined distance to
define a sidewall nesting area therebelow, the upper and lower
edges having a contour directed downwardly to form a corner band
portion having a corner upper edge and corner lower edge, wherein
each nesting area matingly receives a corresponding side band
member of a crate nested subjacent thereto.
12. A crate for bottles comprising:
a base, and
a sidewall structure extending upwardly from the based and
attached thereto, the sidewall structure including a continuous
band member having a pair of opposed side band portions, a pair
of opposed end band portions, and corner band portions disposed
between each adjacent side band portion and end band portion, the
band member defined by an upper edge and lower edge, wherein the
lower edge at the side band portions and end band portions is
spaced above the base a predetermined distance to define a
corresponding nesting area therebelow for receiving the
corresponding side band portion and end band portion when in a
nesting orientation with a similar crate, the upper edge at the
Appeal No. 2004-1603
Application No. 09/626,517
3
side band portions and end band portions being directed
downwardly such that the upper edge at the corner band portion is
disposed below the plane of the upper edge at the side band
portions and end band portions in order to define a corner pocket
above the corner portion upper edge.
20. A crate for bottles comprising:
a floor member;
a pair of opposed end walls, each including an end band
member;
a pair of opposed sidewalls integrally formed with the floor
member and the first pair of opposed sidewalls, each sidewall
including a side band member defined by an upper edge and lower
edge, the lower edge spaced above the floor member by a
predetermined distance to define a sidewall nesting area
therebelow, the upper and lower edges directed downwardly in the
plane of its respective sidewall to form with an adjacent end
band member a corner band portion therebetween, wherein each side
band member is matingly received within a corresponding nesting
area; and
a corner projection member extending upward from the corner
band portion and received within a corresponding opening formed
in a corner lower surface when nested below a similar crate.
28. A crate for bottles comprising:
a base having an upper surface; and
first and second pairs of opposed sidewalls connected to
each other to form a unitary wall construction extending from the
base, each of the side walls having an inner wall mounted to the
base and an outer wall spaced from the inner wall and disposed
above the base upper surface, the outer wall having a lower edge
forming a nesting area therebelow for receiving the corresponding
sidewalls when in a nesting orientation with a similar crate, the
upper edge of adjacent sidewalls directed downwardly to form an
upper edge of a corner band portion which is disposed below the
plane of the upper edge of the sidewalls.

Appeal No. 2004-1603
Application No. 09/626,517
4
29. A crate for bottles comprising:
a floor member having a plurality of bottle support area;
and
first and second pairs of opposed sidewalls integrally
formed with the floor member, each sidewall including an outer
surface defining a band member having an upper edge and a lower
edge, the lower edge spaced above the floor member by a
predetermined distance to define a sidewall nesting area
therebelow, wherein each nesting area matingly receives a
corresponding band member of a crate nested subjacent thereto,
and each sidewall further including an inner surface having a
plurality of elongate members extending inwardly therefrom
between adjacent bottle support areas for connecting the inner
surface to the floor member.
PRIOR ART
Apps (Apps’ 819) 5,060,819 Oct. 29, 1991
Apps et al. (Apps’ 249) Des. 378,249 Mar. 4, 1997
Rehrigh Pacific Company’s 16/20 oz. Splash Crate, two pages
including five pictures of different perspectives of the Splash
Crate (Approximately Mar. 1998 according to the appellants)
(hereinafter referred to as “Splash”).
REJECTION
Claims 1 through 23 and 25 through 29 stand rejected under
35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the disclosure of Apps’ 249.
Claims 1, 2, 4 through 12, 14 through 20, 23 and 25 through 29
stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by the
disclosure of Apps’ 819. Claims 1, 2, 6 through 10, 12 and 16
through 19 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated
by the disclosure of Splash.
Appeal No. 2004-1603
Application No. 09/626,517
5
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claims, specification and
applied prior art references, including all of the arguments
advanced by the examiner and the appellants in support of their
respective positions. This review has led us to conclude that
the examiner’s Section 102(b) rejections are not well founded.
Accordingly, we reverse the examiner’s Section 102(b) rejections
for essentially those reasons set forth in the Brief and the
Reply Brief. We add the following primarily for emphasis.
In proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office,
claims in an application must be given their broadest reasonable
interpretation, taking into account any enlightenment by way of
definition or otherwise found in the specification. In re
Morris, 127 F.3d 1048, 1054, 44 USPQ2d 1023,1027 (Fed. Cir.
1997). “No claim may be read apart from and independent of the
supporting disclosure on which it is based.” See In re Cohn, 438
F.2d 989, 993, 169 USPQ 95, 98 (CCPA 1971).
Applying the above principles to the presently claimed
subject matter, we determine that the term “side band member” or
“band member” recited in claims 1, 12, 20 and 29 means “a side or
other base portion (independent of projections) for supporting
projections”. This interpretation is supported by the
specification and the doctrine of claim differentiation. See the
Appeal No. 2004-1603
Application No. 09/626,517
6
specification in its entirety and dependent claims 3, 13 and 21.
On the other hand, the term “sidewalls” recited in claims 1, 2,
20, 28 and 29 includes both “side band members” and projections.
See the specification in its entirety and the claims themselves.
Having the interpreted the claims on appeal as indicated
supra, we agree with the appellants that Apps’ 819, Apps’249 and
Splash do not teach “side band members” having upper edges
directed downwardly at the ends thereof to form a corner band
portion. We also agree with the appellants that the examiner has
not established that Apps ‘249 teaches each sidewall having a
lower edge forming a nesting area as required by claims 28 and 29
and Apps ‘819 teaches double walls as required by claim 28 and
each side wall having a lower edge nesting area for receiving a
corresponding “band member” as required by claim 29. It follows
that the examiner, on this record, fails to establish a prima
facie case of anticipation within the meaning of Section 102(b).
Accordingly, we reverse each of the aforementioned Section 102(b)
rejections.
Appeal No. 2004-1603
Application No. 09/626,517
7
No time period for taking any subsequent action in
connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 CFR
§ 1.136(a).
REVERSED
CHUNG K. PAK )
Administrative Patent Judge )
)
)
) BOARD OF PATENT
ROMULO H. DELMENDO ) APPEALS AND
Administrative Patent Judge ) INTERFERENCES
)
)
)
JEFFREY T. SMITH )
Administrative Patent Judge )
CKP:dal
Appeal No. 2004-1603
Application No. 09/626,517
8
KONSTANTINE J. DIAMOND
4010 E. 26TH STREET
LOS ANGELES CA 90023