Ex Parte Schutz

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Feb 23, 2012

10977616 (B.P.A.I. Feb. 23, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte UDO SCHUTZ
____________

Appeal 2010-002644
Application 10/977,616
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Appeal 2010-002644
Application 10/977,616

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the decision of the
Examiner rejecting claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Sedlmayr (US 6,202,844 B1; iss. Mar. 20, 2001) and Mansouri (US
6,029,839; iss. Feb. 29, 2000). An oral hearing was held on February 16,
2012. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6.
We AFFIRM.

THE INVENTION
Claim 1, reproduced below with emphasis added, illustrates the
claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A pallet-like support base for transport and storage
containers for liquids comprising an inner container of
plastics material and an outer jacket of a metal grating or of
sheet metal, wherein the pallet-like support base is adapted
to be manipulated by forklifts and shelf operating systems,
the support base comprising a bottom of sheet metal resting
on support legs of metal, a middle runner and two outer
runners for supporting the inner container, wherein the
inner container is equipped with a closable filler connection
and a drain connection for connection to a drain fitting,
wherein the middle runner and the two outer runners of the
support base are wooden runners made of flat boards.

ANALYSIS
Appellant argues claims 1 and 7 as a group. We select claim 1 as
representative. Claim 7, which is not separately argued by Appellant, stands
or falls with claim 1. See 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(1)(vii) (2011).
The Examiner found that Sedlmayr discloses a pallet-like support base
for transporting and storing liquids including a plastic inner container 6 and
Appeal 2010-002644
Application 10/977,616

3
an outer jacket of metal grating 8. Ans. 3. The Examiner also found that
Sedlmayr discloses that the device can be attached to a wooden pallet but
Sedlmayr may not disclose a middle runner and outer runners made of flat
boards. Ans. 3 (citing col. 2, line 52). The Examiner further found that
Mansouri supports a liquid storage container on a wooden pallet having a
wooden middle runner and wooden outer runners. Ans. 4, 5 (annotating fig.
1 of Mansouri to show middle and outer wooden runners). The Examiner
determined it would have been obvious to provide Sedlmayr’s device with a
wooden pallet with three wooden runners, as taught by Mansouri, because
wooden pallets are biodegradable and inexpensive to make, and Sedlmayr
discloses that his device can be attached to a wooden pallet. Ans. 4, 6.
Appellant argues that Sedlmayr does not teach a base constructed as a
runner pallet with supporting feet on the pallet bottom fastened to a middle
runner and two outer runners made of wood. Br. 7-8. This argument is not
commensurate with claim 1, which recites that “the support base compris[es]
a bottom of sheet metal resting on support legs of metal, a middle runner and
two outer runners for supporting the inner container.” (Emphasis added).
This argument also is a piecemeal attack on the references where the
Examiner relied on Sedlmayr to disclose support legs 10, 11 and a middle
support member (cross member 12) and Mansouri to disclose middle and
outer wooden runners. Ans. 3-4.
Appellant also argues that neither Sedlmayr nor Mansouri provides a
motivation for replacing Sedlmayr’s metal base frame with wooden runners
as claimed. Br. 10. This argument is not persuasive because Sedlmayr
discloses supporting the pallet-like support base on a wooden pallet. Ans. 3
(citing col. 2, l. 52), 6; see Br. 7 (“Sedlmayr also discloses a bottom of the
Appeal 2010-002644
Application 10/977,616

4
base fastened to a wood pallet.”). Mansouri discloses a metal frame 20 and
plastic container 70 supported on a wooden pallet. Col. 5, ll. 29-41; col. 6, l.
33; Ans. 4-5. Based on these disclosures, the Examiner determined that it
would have been obvious to attach Sedlmayr’s device to a wooden pallet
that includes wooden middle and outer runners because wooden pallets are
biodegradable and cheaper to manufacture. See Ans. 4, 6. Appellant has not
shown error in the Examiner’s findings or conclusion of obviousness.
Appellant further argues that nowhere in the disclosure or drawings of
Sedlmayr is there any teaching of a transport and storage container having a
plastic inner container and an outer jacket of sheet metal. Br. 8. We agree
with the Examiner that Sedlmayr discloses an inner plastic container 6 and
an outer jacket of a metal grating or sheet material. Ans. 3, 5 (citing col. 4, l.
43 and col. 7, ll. 28-29); see also Br. 7 (noting that Sedlmayr discloses a
holder 6 made of plastic and an outer jacket made of metal grid 8).
As such, we sustain the rejection claim 1 and dependent claim 7.

DECISION
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 and 7 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Sedlmayr and Mansouri is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

AFFIRMED
hh