Ex Parte Stolzman

Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences

Apr 5, 2012

11135927 (B.P.A.I. Apr. 5, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/135,927 05/24/2005 Michael D. Stolzman 00471P0061US 4825
32116 7590 04/05/2012
WOOD, PHILLIPS, KATZ, CLARK & MORTIMER
500 W. MADISON STREET
SUITE 3800
CHICAGO, IL 60661
EXAMINER
WALKER, NED ANDREW
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3788
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
04/05/2012 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE BOARD OF PATENT APPEALS
AND INTERFERENCES
____________

Ex parte MICHAEL D. STOLZMAN
____________

Appeal 2010-003752
Application 11/135,927
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before PHILLIP J. KAUFFMAN, MICHAEL L. HOELTER, and
JAMES P. CALVE, Administrative Patent Judges.

CALVE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the rejection of claims
1-8, 10-18, and 20. Claims 9 and 19 have been withdrawn. We have
jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6. We REVERSE.

Appeal 2010-003752
Application 11/135,927

2
THE INVENTION
Claim 1 illustrates the claimed subject matter on appeal:
1. A bulk container comprising: a one piece base
including a generally rectangular bottom wall, a plurality of
longitudinal rails extending below the bottom wall, and a
peripheral wall extending upwardly from the bottom wall, the
peripheral wall defining an upwardly opening channel; a cap
including an inner wall connected to an outer wall defining a
downwardly opening channel complementary with the
upwardly opening channel; and a peripheral side wall received
in the upwardly opening channel and the downwardly opening
channel to define a parallelepiped interior space.

REJECTIONS1
1. Claims 1-5, 8, and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Budowski (US 2003/0106894 A1; pub. Jun. 12, 2003) and
Schneider (US 4,676,373; iss. Jun. 30, 1987).
2. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Budowski and Schneider, further in view of Ming (US 6,401,952 B1; iss.
Jun. 11, 2002).
3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Budowski, Schneider, and Ming, further in view of Kidd (US 4,643,314; iss.
Feb. 17, 1987).
4. Claims 11-16, 18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Budowski, Schneider, and Ming.
5. Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Budowski, Schneider, Ming, and Kidd.

1 The Examiner withdrew the rejections of claims 6, 7, 11-18, and 20 as
obvious over Budowski, Schneider, and Kidd, and presented New Grounds
of Rejection 2.–5. above. See Ans. 3-4.
Appeal 2010-003752
Application 11/135,927

3
ANALYSIS
Claims 1-5, 8, and 10 as obvious over Budowski and Schneider
The Examiner found that Budowski discloses a bulk container with a
one piece base 10 and rectangular bottom wall 11, but lacks a plurality of
longitudinal rails extending below the bottom wall as called for in claim 1.
Ans. 5. The Examiner found that Schneider discloses a container base and
plurality of longitudinal rails extending below the bottom wall. Ans. 6. The
Examiner determined that it would have been obvious to include Schneider’s
rail structure with the assembly and connection means of Budowski to
provide a pallet that can be easily lifted and transported by a forklift and a
base structure configured for complementary stacking. Ans. 6, 14. The
Examiner also found that rails provide enhanced stability and strength for a
container and that it would have been obvious to combine the rib and rail
structure of Schneider with the one piece base of Budowski to form a one
piece base where doing so involves routine skill in the art. Ans. 6-7, 12-13.
We agree with Appellant that the combination of Budowski and
Schneider does not render obvious a bulk container with a one piece base
having a plurality of longitudinal rails extending below the bottom wall.
App. Br. 4-6. The Examiner’s determination that forming a two piece article
as a one piece article is obvious when it involves routine skill in the art does
not address why it would have been obvious to combine Schneider’s multi-
piece rails with Budowski’s one piece base to form a one piece base with
rails as called for in claim 1. As Appellant points out, Schneider’s rails are
part of a conventional pallet and the bottom of Schneider’s container rests on
the pallet, rather than being secured to the pallet. App. Br. 5; Reply Br. 7;
Schneider, col. 8, ll. 10-22 and 47-58; figs. 1, 6, 7, 8. The Examiner has not
Appeal 2010-003752
Application 11/135,927

4
adequately explained why a skilled artisan would have included rails on the
one piece base of Budowski’s box liner, which is designed to fit in the rear
of a minivan. Reply Br. 5-6. The bottom 10 and top 30 of the liner have a
similar design so that the bottom part 10 can be made in duplicate to form
the top part 30, thereby reducing manufacturing costs. Budowski [0066].
As a result, the liner also is reversible upside down to protect fragile items.2
Budowski [0077]. Accordingly, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 1
or its dependent claims 5, 8, and 10.
Claim 6 as obvious over Budowski, Schneider, and Ming
Claim 6, which depends from claim 1, recites a removable cover
receivable on the cap of the bulk container. The Examiner found that Ming
discloses a removable cover receivable on a cap. Ans. 8. We agree with
Appellant that Ming does not cure the deficiencies of Budowski and
Schneider as to claim 1. Reply Br. 9. As such, we cannot sustain the
rejection of claim 6.
Claim 7 as obvious over Budowski, Schneider, Ming, and Kidd
Claim 7, which depends from claim 1, calls for a cover with
longitudinally extending raised wall portions for supporting rails of a base
for stacking bulk containers. The Examiner found that Kidd discloses a
removable cover with longitudinally extending raised wall portions for
stacking bulk containers. Ans. 8. We agree with Appellant that Kidd does

2 Budowski discloses that the outer part of the liner base may include wheels
to facilitate movement of the box liner between vans (para. [0079]) and the
bottom and top portions optionally may be formed for mating in a stacked
arrangement when not used as liners (para. [0100]).
Appeal 2010-003752
Application 11/135,927

5
not cure the deficiencies of Budowski and Schneider as to claim 1. Reply
Br. 9. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 7.
Claims 11-16, 18, and 20 as obvious over Budowski, Schneider, and Ming
Independent claim 11 recites a bulk container with a one piece plastic
base having a rectangular bottom wall with a plurality of longitudinal rails
extending below the bottom wall. The Examiner determined that it would
have been obvious to incorporate Schneider’s rails on Budowski’s base for
the same reasons as claim 1. Ans. 9-10. The Examiner also found that Ming
discloses a removable cover. Ans. 10. As discussed supra for claim 1, the
Examiner has not persuaded us that it would have been obvious to include
Schneider’s multi-piece pallet and rails on the box liner of Budowski to form
a one piece base with rails as called for in claim 11, and Ming does not cure
this deficiency. See Reply Br. 10; App. Br. 10. As such, we cannot sustain
the rejection of claim 11 or its dependent claims 16, 18, and 20.
Claim 17 as obvious over Budowski, Schneider, Ming, and Kidd
Claim 17, which depends from claim 11, calls for a cover with
longitudinally extending raised wall portions supporting rails of a base for
stacking bulk containers. The Examiner found that Kidd discloses this
feature. Ans. 11-12. We agree with Appellant that Kidd does not cure the
deficiencies of Budowski, Schneider, and Ming as to claim 11. See Reply
Br. 11. As such, we cannot sustain the rejection of claim 17.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 1-8, 10-18, and 20 is REVERSED.

REVERSED
Appeal 2010-003752
Application 11/135,927

6

mls