Georg Utz Holding AG

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 20, 2021

2021002369 (P.T.A.B. Sep. 20, 2021)

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.
15/741,336 01/02/2018 Axel RITZBERGER RITZBERGER - 5 PCT 1062
25889 7590 09/20/2021
COLLARD & ROE, P.C.
1077 NORTHERN BOULEVARD
ROSLYN, NY 11576
EXAMINER
ANDERSON, DON M
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3733
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/20/2021 ELECTRONIC
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.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
uspto@collardroe.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte AXEL RITZBERGER
____________

Appeal 2021-002369
Application 15/741,336
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before JOHN C. KERINS, EDWARD A. BROWN, and
MICHAEL L. WOODS, Administrative Patent Judges.

BROWN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the Examiner’s
decision rejecting claims 1, 2, and 4–6, which are all the pending claims.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Georg Utz Holding AG as the real party
in interest. Appeal Br. 1.
Appeal 2021-002369
Application 15/741,336

2
CLAIMS
Claim 1 is the sole independent claim, and reads:
1. A stack container for transporting and storing objects,
said container comprising:
(a) a rectangular base having bottom edges;
(b) side walls rising vertically from the bottom edges and
forming a top edge cantilevered outwards to form a support
surface; and
(c) a rim surrounding the base and having an underside
formed complementary to an upper side of the top edge of the
side walls, the rim being cantilevered outwards;
wherein partial surfaces of the top edge and the rim have
different angles of inclination, such that corner areas of the top
edge and corner areas of the rim surrounding the base are
formed horizontally and intermediate areas between the corner
areas have inclined partial sections obliquely inclined outward
and downward at an angle from the horizontal corner area, and
wherein the inclined partial sections merge into a
horizontal configuration in outer edge areas of the partial
sections.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.).

REJECTIONS
Claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) as being
anticipated by Perstorp (DE 7807870 U1, pub. July 6, 1978).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Perstorp and Ruiz Carmona (EP 2664556 A1, pub. Nov. 20, 2013).

Appeal 2021-002369
Application 15/741,336

3
ANALYSIS
Anticipation of claims 1, 2, 4, and 6 by Perstorp
The Examiner finds that Perstorp discloses all limitations of claim 1.
Final Act. 2–3. The Examiner provides an annotated version of Figure 5 of
Perstorp. Id. at 2. The annotation “inclined” corresponds to recess 4 located
between the corner and projection 3 at a “top edge” of the container. Id.
The Examiner finds that both the top edge and a rim surrounding a base of
the container have “inclined partial sections (i.e.[,] at [recess] 4 for [the] top
edge, and at [projection] 3 for [the] bottom rim) obliquely inclined outward
and downward at an angle from the horizontal corner area,” as required by
claim 1. Id. The Examiner also finds that both the top edge and rim are
cantilevered outwards, as claimed. Id. at 2–3.
Appellant contends that the Examiner has not established that Perstorp
discloses all limitations of claim 1. Appeal Br. 7. In support, Appellant
provides a drawing labeled as corresponding to the embodiment shown in
Figure 5 of Perstorp, and another drawing labeled as a “simplified
representation” of claim 1. Id. at 9. The former drawing is a cross-sectional
view taken through a projection at the top edge and a projection at the base
of the container. Id. As shown, the upper portion of the drawing
encompassing the upper projection includes an “inclined partial section[]
obliquely inclined outward and downward at an angle from the horizontal
corner area,” where “the inclined partial section[] merge[s] into a horizontal
configuration in [the] outer edge area[s] of the partial section[],” as required
by claim 1. Id. (emphasis added). However, the bottom portion of the
drawing encompassing the bottom projection includes an “inclined partial
section[] obliquely inclined outward and upward at an angle from the
Appeal 2021-002369
Application 15/741,336

4
horizontal corner area,” where “the inclined partial section[] merge[s] into a
horizontal configuration in [the] outer edge area[s] of the partial section[].”
Id. (emphasis added). In contrast, the drawing representing claim 1 shows
the structural features, as claimed, at the upper and lower portions.
The Examiner does not establish that recess 4 shown at the “top edge”
in annotated Figure 5 of Perstorp has an “inclined partial section[s] obliquely
inclined outward and downward at an angle from the horizontal corner area”
and “the inclined partial section[] merge[s] into a horizontal configuration
in [the] outer edge area[s] of the partial section[].” Final Act. 2. Based on
Figure 6 of Perstorp, this recess 4 in annotated Figure 5 would likewise be
V-shaped. As such, this recess 4 would include a first surface “obliquely
inclined outward and downward at an angle from the horizontal corner area”
of the container (i.e., the surface labeled as “inclined” in the annotated
Figure 5), and the first surface would merge into a second surface defining
the recess (not shown). However, the second surface would be “obliquely
inclined outward and upward at an angle from the horizontal corner area,”
and thus, would not satisfy the claim language. Furthermore, annotated
Figure 5 appears to show that the second (upward) surface, not the first
(downward) surface defining recess 4, “merge[s] into a horizontal
configuration in [the] outer edge area[s] of the partial section[].” Id.
As for the claimed “rim surrounding the base,” Figure 5 of Perstorp
shows the configuration of projection 3 adjacent to recess 4 at the top edge.
The Examiner does not establish that bottom projection 3 in Figure 5 has an
“inclined partial section[s] obliquely inclined outward and downward at an
angle from the horizontal corner area” and that “the inclined partial section[]
merge[s] into a horizontal configuration in [the] outer edge area[s] of the
Appeal 2021-002369
Application 15/741,336

5
partial section[],” as required by claim 1. Final Act. 2–3 (emphasis added).
Nor does the Examiner establish that the container includes a rim
surrounding the base of the container that is “cantilevered outwards,” as
claimed. Id.
For the foregoing reasons, the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Perstorp discloses all limitations of claim
1. Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claim 1, and claims 2, 4,
and 6 depending therefrom, as anticipated by Perstorp.

Obviousness of claim 5 over Perstorp and Ruiz Carmona
The Examiner’s reliance on Ruiz Carmona in rejecting claim 5 does
not cure the deficiency in the rejection of claim 1. Hence, we do not sustain
the rejection of claim 5 as unpatentable over Perstorp and Ruiz Carmona.

CONCLUSION
We reverse the Examiner’s rejections.

DECISION SUMMARY
In summary:
Claim(s)
Rejected
35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1, 2, 4, 6 102(a)(1) Perstorp 1, 2, 4, 6
5 103 Perstorp, Ruiz
Carmona
5
Overall
Outcome
1, 2, 4–6

REVERSED