Ex Parte Garcia

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Oct 22, 2012

11517809 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 22, 2012)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
__________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
__________

Ex parte EDUARDO GARCIA
__________

Appeal 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809
Technology Center 3600
___________

Before JAMESON LEE, SALLY C. MEDLEY, and JONI Y. CHANG,
Administrative Patent Judges.

LEE, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellant appeals under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) from the final rejection of
claims 1, 3-11, 13-21, 23-38, and 40-48. The real party in interest is Rehrig
Pacific Company. We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
The Applied Prior Art
Itoda U.S. 2,776,772 Jan. 8, 1957
Woolworth U.S. 3,438,342 Apr. 15, 1969
Bell U.S. 3,640,229 Feb. 8, 1972
Cook U.S. 3,699,901 Oct. 24, 1972
Wharton U.S. 3,835,792 Sep. 17, 1974
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

2

Breezer U.S. 5,046,434 Sep. 10, 1991
Shuert U.S. 5,950,545 Sep. 14, 1999
Apps ‘677 U.S. 6,006,677 Dec. 28, 1999
LeTrudet U.S. 6,029,583 Feb. 29, 2000
Smyers U.S. 2003/0136314 Jul. 24, 2003
Apps ‘081 U.S. 2003/0075081 Apr. 24, 2003
Wullenweber U.S. 2005/0061210 Mar. 24, 2005

The Rejections on Appeal
Claims 1, 3, 4, and 26-30 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over Cook, Apps ‘081, and LeTrudet.
Claims 5, 6, and 31 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, and Woolworth.
Claims 7 and 32 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, Woolworth, and Shuert.
Claims 46 and 47 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, and Shuert.
Claims 33, 34, 36, 42, 43, and 45 were finally rejected under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, and Itoda.
Claims 35 and 44 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, Itoda, and Smyers.
Claims 1, 3, 26, and 48 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over LeTrudet and Apps ‘081.
Claims 8-10 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Itoda.
Claims 11 and 13 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Bell.
Claims 23 and 24 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and Woolworth.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

3

Claims 14-19 and 40 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and Wharton.
Claim 41 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, Wharton, and Itoda.
Claims 14, 15, 37, and 38 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as obvious over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and Wullenweber.
Claims 11 and 13 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Bell and Cook.
Claims 20 and 21 were finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Bell, Cook, and Apps ‘677.
Claim 25 was finally rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
Bell, Cook, and Breezer.
The Invention
The claimed invention relates to a pallet. Pallets have been
known to store and transport goods. (Spec. 1, ¶0002). It was also
known that plastic pallets are preferred over wooden pallets because
they are lighter and more durable. (Spec. 1, ¶0002). Some known
plastic pallets can also be stacked when empty. (Spec. 1, ¶0003). The
independent claims are 1, 11 and 26. Claims 1 and 11are directed to a
pallet and claim 26 is directed to a running board that supports a
pallet.

Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

4

DISCUSSION
A. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 4, and 26-30 over Cook,
Apps ‘081, and LeTrudet

Claim 1 is reproduced below (emphasis added):
1. A pallet comprising:
a deck;
a plurality of columns extending downwardly from
the deck; and
at least one runner board separate from said deck
and removably secured to the plurality of columns,
wherein the at least one running board includes a
plurality of pockets connected by a plurality of
runners, the plurality of pockets being defined by
an outer peripheral wall portion that extends
upwardly beyond an upper surface of the
runners.

The Examiner determined that Cook discloses all the elements of
claim 1 except for “an outer peripheral wall portion that extends upwardly
beyond an upper surface of the runners.” (Ans. 5:1-3). The Examiner relies
on Apps ‘081 as teaching that limitation. (Ans. 5:4-5).
Cook discloses a pallet having a deck that provides a load supporting
surface. (Cook Abstract). Figure 2 of Cook, reproduced below, is a cross
sectional view of Cook’s pallet:

Figure 2 showing cross sectional view of Cook’s pallet
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

5

The Examiner determined that Cook teaches a pallet having a deck 12,
a plurality of columns 16, and at least one running board (i.e. the
combination of runner 42 and plate 48) which includes a pocket (i.e. the
structure that receives the column 16). (Ans. 4:15-19). The Examiner found
that Cook does not teach a pocket having an outer peripheral wall portion
that extends upwardly beyond the upper surface of the runners. (Ans. 5:1-3).
The Examiner relied on Apps ‘081 as teaching an outer peripheral
wall portion that extends upwardly beyond an upper surface. (Ans. 5:4-5).
Apps ‘081 discloses a pallet assembly that includes a top deck having a top
portion and a mid-top portion and a bottom deck having a mid-bottom
portion and a bottom portion. (Apps ¶ 0019). Figure 2 of Apps ‘081,
reproduced below, is a perspective view of an embodiment of Apps’ pallet
assembly:

Figure 2 shows a perspective view of
an embodiment of the Apps ’081 pallet assembly

Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

6

The Examiner identified element 494 in Figure 2 of Apps ‘081 as the
outer peripheral wall portion that extends upwardly beyond an upper surface.
(Ans. 5:4-5). The Examiner reasoned that in light of element 494 of Apps
‘081, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to extend
the outer peripheral wall portion of Cook beyond an upper surface of the
runners in Cook. (Ans. 5:7-11).
The Appellant argues that Apps ‘081 does not disclose any type of
running board, and that as such, does not disclose a runner for a running
board that has an outer peripheral wall portion. (Brief 5:19; 6:5-6).
Appellant’s argument is misplaced. One cannot attack references
individually where the rejection is based on combinations of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800
F.2d 1091, 1097 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Examiner relied on Cook for
disclosing a running board connected by a plurality of runners. (Ans. 5:1-3).
The question is whether in light of the teaching in Apps ‘081 of the
usefulness of pockets or raised peripheral wall extensions to secure the
columns of a pallet without a base running board, it would have been
obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to include similar pockets or
peripheral wall extensions on runners of a running board supporting a pallet.
Apps ‘081 teaches that element 494 is a part of the mid-bottom
portion 434 of bottom deck 414 in Figure 2. (Apps’ 081 ¶0019). Element
494 includes raised peripheral walls and secures the columns of a pallet to
the pallet’s bottom support structure. The Examiner determined that element
494 serves to keep the columns of a pallet in place and restrict any
movement of the columns. (Ans. 5:9-11). In light of that finding, for pallets
with a running board such as that disclosed in Cook, it would have been
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

7

apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art that the same advantages can be
achieved by placing a corresponding structure on the runners of Cook.
Appellant does not dispute that the structure of element 494 would produce
the same advantages whether it is on a deck or on a running board. We have
no reason to believe that one with ordinary skill in the art would believe
otherwise.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claim 1 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over Cook, Apps
‘081, and LeTrudet.
Appellant has not argued the merits of any of claims 3, 4, and 26-30,
apart from that of claim 1. Accordingly, we are also not persuaded of error
in the rejection of claims 3, 4, and 26-30.

B. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 5, 6,
and 31 over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, and Woolworth

Claim 5 depends on claim 1 and is reproduced below (emphasis
added):
5. The pallet as recited in Claim 1, wherein at least
one of the plurality of pockets includes a pair of
snap-fit tabs.

The Examiner determined that all of the features except for “a pair of
snap-fit tabs” are suggested by the combination of Cook, Apps ‘081, and
LeTrudet. (Ans. 7:3-7). The Examiner found that Woolworth discloses a
pair of snap-fit tabs to connect a pallet’s column with a base structure. (Ans.
7:7-8).
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

8

Woolworth discloses a pallet having a pallet leg including improved
means to attach the pallet leg to the pallet. (Woolworth Abstract). Figure 4
of Woolworth, reproduced below, shows a cross-sectional view of an
embodiment of Woolworth’s pallet:

Figure 4 showing a cross-sectional view
of an embodiment of Woolworth’s pallet

The Examiner identified element 60 as the snap-fit tabs which connect
the pallet’s column to the base structure 48. (Ans. 7:7-8). The Examiner is
correct that it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art
to use these same snap-fit tabs in the combined structure of Cook, Apps
‘081, and LeTrudet to accomplish the same objective of securing the pallet
legs to their base support structure. (Ans. 7:10-11). There is no reason why
the snap-fit tabs would only perform in the specific context of Woolworth.
The Appellant argues that Woolworth does not teach a running board
structure and thus, Woolworth also does not teach an attachment interface
between a column and a running board. (Brief 7:18-20). Appellant’s
argument is misplaced. As discussed above, one cannot attack references
individually where the rejection is based on combinations of references. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. The Examiner
relied on LeTrudet for teaching a running board supporting pallet columns.
(Ans. 7:3-7). The question is whether in light of the teaching in Woolworth
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

9

of the usefulness of snap-fit tabs to secure the columns of a pallet to a
bottom support structure, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary
skill in the art to include snap-fit tabs in the pockets of a running board
supporting a pallet. Also, the rejection is for obviousness, not anticipation.
No prior art reference has to actually describe using snap-fit tabs to secure
pallet columns to a running board.
Woolworth discloses that tabs 60 are received in corresponding holes
on the bottom end wall 38 of pallet leg 28. (Woolworth 7:7-9). Tabs 60
secure the legs of a pallet 28 to the pallet’s bottom base support structure 48.
(Woolworth 7:3-4, 7-12). In light of that disclosure in Woolworth, for
pallets with a running board supporting the pallet columns such as that
suggested by the combination of Cook, Apps ‘081, and LeTrudet, it would
have been apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art that the same snap-fit
tabs can be employed. The Appellant presents no reason why the snap-fit
tabs would function only in the column and base structure of Woolworth.
We are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 5 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, and
Woolworth.
Appellant has not argued the merits of claims 6 and 31 apart from that
of claim 5. Accordingly, we are also not persuaded of any error in the
rejection of claims 6 and 31.

Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

10

C. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 7 and
32 over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, Woolworth, and Shuert

Claim 7 is reproduced below (emphasis added):
7. The pallet as recited in Claim 6, wherein the at
least one of the plurality of pockets further
includes two opposing pairs of protrusions
formed within the wall portion of the at least
one of the plurality of pockets.

The Examiner determined that all the features except for “two
opposing pairs of protrusion formed within the wall portion of…one of the
plurality of pockets” are accounted for by the combination of Cook, Apps
‘081, LeTrudet, and Woolworth. (Ans. 7:17-8:2). The Examiner relies on
Shuert as disclosing that missing feature. (Ans. 8:3-4).
Shuert discloses a twin sheet plastic pallet that includes an upper sheet
and a lower sheet. (Shuert Abstract). Figure 4 of Shuert, reproduced below,
is a cross sectional view of one of the pockets of an embodiment of Shuert:

Figure 4 showing a cross sectional view of one of the pockets of an
embodiment of Shuert

The Examiner identified ribs 14k as the protrusions that are formed
within a wall portion of a pocket. (Ans. 8:3-4). The Examiner’s rationale in
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

11

including protrusions in a pocket is to strengthen the connection of the
pocket to another structure. (Ans. 8:16-18).
The Appellant argues that the ribs 14k are not formed within a pocket
in a runner. (Brief 8:10-11). However, the claim requires protrusions within
the wall of a pocket, not protrusions formed within a pocket.
The Appellant argues that while claim 7 requires a pocket that
includes two opposing pairs of protrusions formed within the wall portion,
Shuert, instead, teaches equally spaced ribs 14k that are circumferentially
about a wall. (Brief 9:7-9). We agree that Shuert does not disclose two
opposing pairs of protrusions. In the context of Appellant’s invention,
“opposing protrusions” has to face toward each other. Shuert’s protrusions
face away from each other and do not meet the requirement of claim 7.
On this record, we conclude that the rejection of claim 7 over Cook,
Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, Woolworth, and Shuert is based on improper hindsight
in light of Appellant’s own specification.
Claim 32 depends on claim 7. For the above-explained reasons, the
rejection of claims 7 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cook,
Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, Woolworth and Shuert cannot be sustained.

D. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 46 and 47 over Cook, Apps
‘081, LeTrudet, and Shuert

Claim 46 depends on claim 26, and claim 47 depends on claim 46.
The Appellant also did not argue the merit of claims 46 and 47 apart from
that of claim 26. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claims 46 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cook, Apps
‘081, LeTrudet, and Shuert.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

12

E. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 33, 34,
36, 42, 43, and 45 over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, and Itoda

Claim 33 depends on claim 1 and claim 42 depends indirectly on
claim 26. Claim 33 is representative and is reproduced below:
33. The pallet as recited in Claim 1, including at least
one pyramid that extends from the upper surface of
the runner toward an upper edge of the wall
portion of one pocket.

The Examiner determined that all the features except for “at least one
pyramid that extends from the upper surface of the runner toward an upper
edge of the wall portion of one pocket” are accounted for by the combination
of Cook, Apps ‘081, and LeTrudet. (Ans. 10:6-10). The Examiner relies on
Itoda as teaching that missing feature. (Ans. 10:16-17).
Itoda discloses improved packing devices that provide for
compartments in which fragile articles can be transported without damage or
breakage. (Itoda 1:17-22). Figure 3 of Itoda, reproduced below, shows a
cross sectional view of Itoda’s packing device:

Figure 3 shows a cross sectional view of Itoda’s packing device
The Examiner identified recess 44 as the pyramid and channel 22 as
the wall portion of a pocket. (Ans. 10:16-17). The Appellant argues that the
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

13

pyramid (i.e. 44) in Itoda does not extend toward an upper edge of a wall
portion of a pocket. (Brief 11:10). We agree.
Claim 33 requires a pyramid and a wall portion of a pocket. The
Examiner has identified recess 44 as a pyramid and channel 22 as a wall
portion of a pocket. However, channel 22 is not a wall portion of a pocket.
Itoda does not disclose or teach having any type of pocket in its packing
device, let alone a pocket as is recited in claim 33. The Examiner has failed
to establish how the structure of Itoda can be used in the same manner as is
required by claim 33.
For a proper rejection, the Examiner has to identify a structure in
Itoda that has some resemblance to a wall portion of a pocket. The
Examiner has failed to do so. On this record, we conclude that the rejection
of claim 33 over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, and Itoda is based on improper
hindsight in light of Appellant’s own specification.
Claims 34 and 36 depend on claim 33. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 33, 34 and 36 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cook, Apps
‘081, LeTrudet, and Itoda cannot be sustained.
Claim 42 includes the same disputed limitation as in claim 33. For the
same reasons as we expressed above in connection with claim 33, the
rejection of claim 42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cook, Apps
‘081, LeTrudet, and Itoda cannot be sustained.
Claims 43 and 45 depend on claim 42. Accordingly, the rejection of
claims 43 and 45 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cook, Apps ‘081,
LeTrudet, and Itoda also cannot be sustained.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

14

F. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 35
and 44 over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, Itoda, and Smyers

Claim 35 depends on claim 33. The Examiner’s reliance on Smyers
does not cure the deficiencies discussed above of Cook, Apps ‘081,
LeTrudet, and Itoda with respect to claim 33. Accordingly, the rejection of
claim 35 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet,
Itoda, and Smyers cannot be sustained.
Claim 44 depends on claim 43 which depends on claim 42. The
Examiner’s reliance on Smyers does not cure the deficiencies discussed
above of Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, and Itoda with respect to claims 42
and 43. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, Itoda, and Smyers cannot be
sustained.

G. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 1, 3, 26, and 48 over LeTrudet
and Apps ‘081

The Examiner determined that LeTrudet discloses all the elements of
claim 1 except for “an outer peripheral wall portion that extends upwardly
beyond an upper surface of the runners.” (Ans. 12:11-17). The Examiner
relies on Apps ‘081 as teaching that limitation. (Ans. 12:18-19).
LeTrudet discloses a pallet that has a lower member and an upper
member. (LeTrudet Abstract:1). The upper member is attached to the lower
member. (LeTrudet 1:6-7). Figure 2 of LeTrudet, reproduced below, is a
side view of an embodiment of LeTrudet’s pallet. Figure 8 of LeTrudet, also
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

15

reproduced below, is a perspective view of an embodiment of LeTrudet’s
pallet.

Figure 2 showing a side view of an embodiment of LeTrudet’s pallet

Figure 8 shows a perspective view of an embodiment of LeTrudet’s pallet
The Examiner determined that LeTrudet discloses a pallet having a
deck 26, a plurality of columns 28, and at least one running board 224c
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

16

which includes a pocket 46. (Ans. 12:11-15). The Examiner determined
that LeTrudet does not teach a pocket having an outer peripheral wall
portion that extends upwardly beyond the upper surface of the runners.
(Ans. 12:16-17).
The Examiner relied on Apps ‘081 as teaching an outer peripheral
wall portion that extends upwardly beyond an upper surface. (Ans. 12:18-
19). Apps ‘081 discloses a pallet assembly that includes a top deck having a
top portion and a mid-top portion and a bottom deck having a mid-bottom
portion and a bottom portion. (Apps ¶ 0019). Figure 2 of Apps ‘081,
reproduced above on page 5 of this opinion, is a perspective view of an
embodiment of the Apps ’081 pallet assembly.
The Examiner identified element 494 in Figure 2 of Apps ‘081 as the
outer peripheral wall portion that extends upwardly beyond an upper surface.
(Ans. 12:18-19). The Examiner reasoned that in light of element 494 of
Apps ‘081, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
extend the outer peripheral wall portion of LeTrudet beyond an upper
surface of the runners in LeTrudet. (Ans. 12:19-21).
The Appellant argues that Apps ‘081 does not disclose any type of
running board, and that as such, does not disclose a runner for a running
board that has an outer peripheral wall portion. (Brief 5:19; Brief 6:5-6).
Appellant’s argument is misplaced. As discussed above, one cannot attack
references individually where the rejection is based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
The Examiner relied not on Apps ‘081 but on LeTrudet for disclosing a
running board connected by a plurality of runners. (Ans. 12:11-15). The
question is whether in light of the teaching in Apps ‘081 of the usefulness of
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

17

pockets or raised peripheral wall extensions to secure the columns of a pallet
without a base running board, it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art to include similar pockets or peripheral wall
extensions on runners of a running board supporting a pallet.
Apps ‘081 teaches that element 494 is a part of the mid-bottom
portion 434 of bottom deck 414 in Figure 2. (Apps’ 081 ¶0019). Element
494 includes raised peripheral walls and secures the columns of a pallet to
the pallet’s bottom support structure. The Examiner determined that element
494 serves to keep the columns of a pallet in place and restrict any
movement of the columns. (Ans. 5:9-11). In light of that finding, for pallets
with a running board such as that disclosed in LeTrudet, it would have been
apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art that the same advantages can be
achieved by placing the same structure on the runners of LeTrudet. It is the
reasonable position of the Examiner that the structure of element 494 would
produce the same advantages whether it is on a deck or on a running board.
Appellant has not demonstrated that that would not have been so.
We are not persuaded of error in the rejection of claim 1 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over LeTrudet and Apps ‘081.
Appellant has not argued the merits of any of claims 3, 26, and 48,
apart from that of claim 1. Accordingly, we are also not persuaded of error
in the rejection of claims 3, 26, and 48.

Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

18

H. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims
8-10 over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Itoda

Claim 8 is reproduced below (emphasis added):
8. The pallet as recited in Claim 1, wherein the at
least one running board includes a first running
board and a second running board independent
from the first running board, the first running
board being removably secured to a first set of
columns of the plurality of columns and the second
running board being removably secured to a
second set of columns of the plurality of columns
different than the first set of columns, and wherein
the first running board includes a pair of
pyramids projecting upward from a topside of
the first running board.

The Examiner determined that all of the features except for “a pair of
pyramids projecting upward from a topside of the first running board” are
accounted for by the combination of LeTrudet and Apps ‘081. (Ans. 14: 6-
12). The Examiner relied on Itoda as teaching that missing feature. (Ans.
14:18-19). The Examiner’s rationale for including pyramids is that it would
facilitate stacking by providing additional connecting structures. (Ans. 15:1-
6).
Itoda discloses improved packing devices that provide for
compartments in which fragile articles can be placed and transported without
damage or breakage. (Itoda 1:17-22). Figure 3 of Itoda, reproduced above
on page 12 of this opinion, and Figure 4 of Itoda, reproduced below, shows a
cross sectional view of an embodiment of Itoda’s packing device.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

19

Figure 4 showing a cross-sectional view
of an embodiment of Itoda’s packing device

The Examiner identified recesses 44 as the pair of pyramids. (Ans.
14:18-19). The Appellant argues that the pair of pyramids (i.e. 44) in Itoda
extends from an underside of a packing device to form support legs and
therefore, does not disclose a pair of pyramids that project upward from a
topside of a running board. (Brief 16:4-6). However, the Examiner
determined that one with ordinary skill would have known to invert the
structure of Figure 3 for stacking purposes. (Ans. 28:8-10). In doing so, the
pyramids in Itoda would project upward. (Ans. 28:8-10). The Examiner’s
position is reasonable that one with ordinary skill would have known that the
up or down direction of the pyramid structure does not affect stacking.
Appellant has not explained why that would not have been so.
As discussed above, one cannot attack references individually where
the rejection is based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642
F.2d at 426; In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. The Examiner relied on
LeTrudet for teaching running boards. (Ans. 14: 6-12). The question is
whether in light of the teaching in Itoda of the usefulness of pyramids to
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

20

stack multiple packing devices, it would have been obvious to one with
ordinary skill in the art to include pyramids on runners of a running board
supporting a pallet.
Itoda discloses a packing device having recesses 44 that rest easily
into another set of recesses 44 of a different packing device. (Itoda 2:43-57).
The purpose of recesses 44 serves to stack multiple packing devices with
ease. (Itoda 2:50-61). In light of that disclosure in Itoda, for pallets with a
running board such as that disclosed in the combination of LeTrudet and
Apps ‘081, it would have been apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art
that similar advantages can be achieved by placing a similar structure on a
topside of the running boards in the combination of LeTrudet and Apps
‘081. The structure of recesses 44 would produce the same advantages
whether it is extending downward or upward from a surface.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claim 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over LeTrudet,
Apps ‘081, and Itoda.
Appellant has not argued the merits of claims 9 and 10, apart from
that of claim 8. Accordingly, we are also not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claims 9 and 10.

Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

21

I. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 11
and 13 over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Bell

Claim 11 is reproduced below (emphasis added):
11. A pallet comprising:
a deck including an upper surface and a plurality
of reinforcement pockets molded within the deck;
and
a plurality of columns extending downwardly from
the deck wherein each of the plurality of columns
includes a peripheral wall, a bottom wall, and at
least one aperture formed within the bottom
wall to receive a snap-fit attachment, and
wherein only one reinforcement pocket is
positioned to extend between each pair of
adjacent columns.

At the outset, the Examiner determined that LeTrudet discloses the
feature of “at least one aperture formed within the bottom wall to receive a
snap-fit attachment.” (Ans. 16:17-17:2).
LeTrudet discloses a pallet that has a lower member and an upper
member. (LeTrudet Abstract:1). The upper member is attached to the lower
member. (LeTrudet 1:6-7). Figure 2 of LeTrudet, which has been
reproduced above, is a side view of an embodiment of LeTrudet’s pallet.
Figure 7 of LeTrudet, reproduced below, is a top plan view of the upper
member of an embodiment of LeTrudet’s pallet.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

22

Figure 7 showing a top plan view of the upper member of an embodiment of
LeTrudet’s pallet

The Appellant argues that LeTrudet does not disclose a bottom wall of
a column having an aperture for a snap-fit attachment. (Brief 17:5-6). The
Appellant argues that LeTrudet instead discloses holding fingers 44 that are
engaged in notches 36 in leg side walls 30. (Brief 17:7-8). The Appellant’s
argument is misplaced.
The Examiner identified the holes in each column 28 as the aperture
that receives a snap-fit attachment. (Ans. 16:17-17:2). Figure 7 of LeTrudet
shows each column 28 with holes on the bottom wall of the column. The
Examiner determined that these holes serve to receive an appropriately-sized
and shaped snap-fit attachment. (Ans. 17:1-2). The Appellant’s argument
does not refute the finding that holes are on the bottom wall of the columns
for engaging a snap-fit attachment. The presence of holding fingers does not
exclude snap-fit attachments in apertures of the bottom wall.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

23

The Examiner then determined that all features except for “wherein
only one reinforcement pocket is positioned to extend between each pair of
adjacent columns” are accounted for by the combination of LeTrudet and
Apps ‘081. (Ans. 15:12-17). The Examiner relies on Bell as teaching that
missing feature (Ans. 15:18-20).
Bell discloses a pallet constructed from plastic sheet material. (Bell
Abstract 1-2). Figure 5 of Bell, reproduced below, shows a plan view of an
embodiment of Bell’s pallet:

Figure 5 showing a plan view of an embodiment of Bell’s pallet
The Examiner identified ribs 5 and 6 as the only reinforcement pocket
positioned between each pair of adjacent columns 4 and 4’. (Ans. 15:18-20).
Ribs 5 and 6 are of hollow construction with openings at the top and are
considered reinforcement pockets. (Bell 2:19-20). The Examiner states that
including only one reinforcement pocket between each pair of adjacent
columns in LeTrudet is to reduce the complexity of the overall structure of
LeTrudet. (Ans. 16:1-4).
The Appellant argues that LeTrudet teaches away from the proposed
modification because LeTrudet teaches the benefits of a deck having a
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

24

plurality of reinforcement pockets between each of the pallet’s columns.
(Brief 17:1-4). We disagree.
Appellant does not point to where in LeTrudet exists such a
disclosure. Even if there is such a disclosure, that does not constitute a
teaching away from having only a single reinforcement pocket between
adjacent columns unless LeTrudet describes that using only a single pocket
between adjacent columns renders the structure inoperative or significantly
impractical. Silence does not constitute a teaching away. Neither does a
disclosure of something different. A reference does not teach away if it
merely expresses a general preference for an alternative embodiment and the
reference does not “criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution
claimed.” See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201 (Fed. Cir. 2004); DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d 1356, 1364 (Fed.
Cir. 2006) (“We will not read into a reference a teaching away from a
process where no such language exists.”). Teaching away is affirmative
disparagement that goes beyond identifying a less preferred embodiment.
Bell discloses having only one reinforcement pocket (i.e. 5 or 6) that
is positioned between each pair of adjacent columns (i.e. 4 and 4’). (Bell
Figure 5). The purpose of the ribs 5 and 6 is to keep the pallet from
deforming when the pallet is subjected to a downward force from a normal
load. (Bell 2:31-36). In light of that disclosure in Bell, for pallets with
multiple reinforcement pockets such as that disclosed in LeTrudet, it would
have been apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art that similar
advantages can be achieved by placing a similar structure on the pallet of
LeTrudet. There is no apparent reason why the structure in Bell would work
and function only in the pallet structure of Bell.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

25

For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over LeTrudet,
Apps ‘081, and Bell.
Appellant has not argued the merits of claim 13 apart from that of
claim 11. Accordingly, we are also not persuaded of error in the rejection of
claim 13.

J. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 23
and 24 over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and Woolworth

Claim 23 is reproduced below:
23. The pallet as recited in Claim 11, wherein the at
least one aperture comprises a pair of apertures
that are each formed through the bottom wall.

The Examiner determined that all of the features except for “wherein
the at least one aperture comprises a pair of apertures that are each formed
through the bottom wall” are accounted for by the combination of LeTrudet,
Apps ‘081, and Bell. (Ans. 17:7-11). The Examiner found that Woolworth
discloses a pair of apertures formed through a bottom wall of a pallet’s
column. (Ans. 17:11-13).
Woolworth discloses a pallet with an improved attachment means of a
pallet leg to the pallet. (Woolworth Abstract). Figure 4 of Woolworth,
which has been reproduced above, shows a cross-sectional view of an
embodiment of Woolworth’s pallet. The Examiner identified the holes
through which element 60 passes as the pair of apertures. (Ans. 17:11-13).
The Examiner’s reasoning for using the pair of apertures of Woolworth in
the combined structure of LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Bell is that the pair of
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

26

apertures would serve the same function and achieve the same desirable
result in either setting. (Ans. 17:16-17).
The Appellant argues that Woolworth does not teach a running board
structure and thus, Woolworth also does not teach an attachment interface
between a column and a running board. (Brief 17:25-18:2). Appellant’s
argument is misplaced. As discussed above, one cannot attack references
individually where the rejection of obviousness is based on combinations of
references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at 426; In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097.
The Examiner relied on LeTrudet for teaching a running board. (Ans. 17:7-
11). The question is whether in light of the teaching in Woolworth of the
usefulness of a pair of apertures to secure the columns of a pallet to a bottom
support structure, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in
the art to include a pair of apertures on the bottom wall of a support column
that connects to a running board supporting a pallet.
Woolworth discloses that element 60 is received in corresponding
holes on the bottom end wall 38 of pallet leg 28. (Woolworth 7:7-9). The
purpose of the holes on the bottom end wall 38 is to secure the bottom
support structure 48 to the pallet leg 28 when element 60 passes
therethrough. (Woolworth 7:9-12). In light of that disclosure in Woolworth,
for pallets with a running board such as that disclosed in the combination of
LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Bell, it would have been apparent to one with
ordinary skill in the art that similar advantages can be achieved by doing the
same in the bottom wall of the pallet’s column in the combination of
LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Bell. There is no apparent reason why the pair of
apertures would work and function only in the column of Woolworth.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

27

For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over LeTrudet,
Apps ‘081, Bell, and Woolworth.
The Examiner has not explained how claim 24 would have been
obvious over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, and Woolworth. Appellant does
argue the merits of claim 24. Accordingly, the rejection of claim 24 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and
Woolworth cannot be sustained.

K. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 14-19
and 40 over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and Wharton

Claim 14 is reproduced below:
14. The pallet as recited in Claim 13, wherein the at
least one reinforcement pocket further includes at
least one rib, wherein the rib is substantially
perpendicular to a floor.

The Examiner determined that all features except for “wherein the at
least one reinforcement pocket further includes at least one rib” are
accounted for by the combination of LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Bell. (Ans.
17:20-18:2). The Examiner relies on Wharton as teaching that missing
feature. (Ans. 18:2-4).
Wharton discloses plastic pallets that are used for support and
transport of articles stacked on the pallets. (Wharton Abstract:1-3).
Wharton’s pallet has a top deck and a bottom deck. (Wharton Abstract:3-4).
Figure 3 of Wharton, reproduced below, shows a plan view of the top of the
top deck of an embodiment of Wharton’s pallet:
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

28

Figure 3 showing plan view of the top of the top
deck of an embodiment of Wharton’s pallet

The Examiner identified rib 104 as the at least one rib that is
substantially perpendicular to a floor. (Ans. 18:2-4). The Examiner’s
reasoning for using the rib in Wharton in the combined structure of
LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Bell is that the rib would serve the same function
and achieve the same desirable result in either setting. (Ans. 18:4-7).
The Appellant argues that Wharton does not disclose reinforcement
pockets, but instead discloses a series of corrugations in combination with
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

29

ribs. (Brief 19:6-8). The Appellant’s argument is misplaced. As discussed
above, one cannot attack references individually where the rejection of
obviousness is based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642
F.2d at 426; In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. The Examiner relied not on
Wharton but on LeTrudet for the reinforcement pocket limitation. (Ans.
17:20-18:2). The question is whether in light of the teaching in Wharton of
the usefulness of a rib to strengthen a pallet structure, it would have been
obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to include a rib in a
reinforcement pocket of a pallet.
Wharton discloses ribs 104 to reinforce a series of corrugations 102
on the top deck of Wharton’s pallet assembly. (Wharton 4:61-63). The
purpose of the ribs 104 serves to impart additional strength to the top deck of
Wharton’s pallet assembly. (Wharton 5:2-9). In light of that disclosure in
Wharton, for pallets with a reinforcement pocket such as that disclosed in
the combination of LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Bell, it would have been
apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art that similar advantages can be
achieved by including the same in the reinforcement pocket. There is no
apparent reason why the ribs would work and function only in the series of
corrugation in Wharton.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness over LeTrudet,
Apps ‘081, Bell, and Wharton.
Appellant has not argued the merits of claims 15-19, apart from that
of claim 14. Accordingly, we are also not persuaded of error in the rejection
of claims 15-19.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

30

For claim 40, Appellant restates the same arguments presented in
connection with claims 1 and 11. For the same reasons as we expressed
above in connection with the affirmance of the rejection of claims 1 and 11
over LeTrudet and Apps ‘081, the rejection of claim 40 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 for obviousness over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and Wharton is also
sustained.

L. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 41
over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, Wharton, and Itoda

Claim 41 is reproduced below:
41. The pallet as recited in Claim 40, including at least
one pyramid that extends from the upper surface of
the runner toward an upper edge of the wall
portion of one pocket.

The Examiner determined that all the features except for “at least one
pyramid that extends from the upper surface of the runner toward an upper
edge of the wall portion of one pocket” are accounted for by the combination
of LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and Wharton. (Ans. 19:16-21). The
Examiner relies on Itoda as teaching that missing feature. (Ans. 19:21-
20:1).
Itoda discloses improved packing devices that provide for
compartments in which fragile articles can be transported without damage or
breakage. (Itoda 1:17-22). Figure 3 of Itoda, which has been reproduced
above, shows a cross sectional view of Itoda’s packing device.
The Examiner identified recess 44 as the pyramid and channel 22 as
the wall portion of a pocket. (Ans. 19:21-20:1). The Appellant argues that
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

31

the pyramid (i.e. 44) in Itoda does not extend toward an upper edge of a wall
portion of a pocket. (Brief 11:10). We agree.
Claim 41 requires a pyramid and a wall portion of a pocket. The
Examiner has identified recess 44 as a pyramid and channel 22 as a wall
portion of a pocket. However, channel 22 is not a wall portion of a pocket.
Itoda does not disclose or teach having any type of pocket in its packing
devices. The Examiner has failed to establish how the structure of Itoda can
be used in the same manner as required by claim 41.
For a proper rejection, the Examiner has to identify a structure in
Itoda that has some resemblance to a wall portion of a pocket. The
Examiner has failed to do so. The channel 22 of Itoda has no resemblance to
a wall portion of a pocket. On this record, we conclude that the rejection of
claim 41 over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, Wharton, and Itoda is based on
improper hindsight in light of Appellant’s own specification.

M. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 14, 15, 37, and 38 over
LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and Wullenweber

Claim 14 has been reproduced above.
The Examiner determined that all features except for “wherein the at
least one reinforcement pocket further includes at least one rib” are
accounted for by the combination of LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Bell. (Ans.
20:9-12). The Examiner relies on Wullenweber as teaching that missing
feature. (Ans. 20:17-19).
Wullenweber discloses a pallet composed of a removable plastic deck
and a metal base. (Wullenweber Abstract:1-2). Figure 1 of Wullenweber,
reproduced below, is a perspective view of Wullenweber’s pallet:
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

32

Figure 1 showing a perspective view of Wullenweber’s pallet
The Examiner identified lug member 41 as the reinforcement pocket. (Ans.
20:17-18). The Examiner further determined that ribs are positioned within
lug member 41. (Ans. 20:17-18). The Examiner’s determination that
Wullenweber has ribs within lug member 41 is unsupported and without
merit.
Claim 14 requires a reinforcement pocket and a rib within the
reinforcement pocket. The Examiner identified lug member 41 as the
reinforcement pocket but has not identified any structure within lug 41 that
can be reasonably characterized as a rib.
On this record, we conclude that the rejection of claim 14 over
LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell and Wullenweber is based on improper hindsight
in light of Appellant’s own specification.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

33

Claim 15, 37, and 38 each depend either directly or indirectly from
claim 14. Accordingly, the rejection of claims 14, 15, 37, and 38 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell and
Wullenweber cannot be sustained.

N. The Obviousness Rejection of
Claims 11 and 13 over Bell and Cook

The Examiner determined that all features of claim 11 are taught by
Bell except for “at least one aperture formed within the bottom wall to
receive a snap-fit attachment.” (Ans. 21:12-18). The Examiner relies on
Cook as teaching that missing feature. (Ans. 21:19-20).
Cook discloses a pallet having a deck that provides a load supporting
surface. (Cook Abstract). Figure 2 of Cook, which has been reproduced
above, is a cross sectional view of Cook’s pallet. The Examiner identified
drain holes 30 in column legs 16 as the apertures formed within the bottom
wall to receive a snap-fit attachment. (Ans. 21:19-20). The Appellant
argues that Bell teaches away from the proposed modification of Bell to
include drain holes 30 because “Bell is directed to providing a plastic pallet
with sufficient rigidity to replace a wooden pallet.” (Brief 21:17-19). The
Appellant’s argument is misplaced. Appellant has not pointed to any
disclosure in Bell which indicates that the use of a snap-in means in an
aperture could not function or would be otherwise inoperable to secure the
support column of a pallet. Again, silence and disclosure of something else
does not adequately support a valid teaching away argument.
Cook discloses drain holes 30 in which a snap-in means 52 connects
runners 42 to legs 16. (Cook 3:36-42). The purpose of the drain holes 30 is
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

34

to receive the snap-in means 52 from the runners 42, thus securing the
column legs 16 to the runners 42. (Cook 3:39-42, 3:47-49). In light of that
disclosure in Cook, for pallets with columns such as that disclosed in Bell, it
would have been apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art that the same
desirable result can be achieved by placing apertures in the support columns
of Bell and extend snap-in means therethrough. There is no apparent reason
why the securing structure in Cook would work and function only in the
pallet of Cook.
Appellant has not argued the merits of claim 13 apart from that of
claim 11. Accordingly, we are not persuaded of error in the rejection of
claims 11 and 13 for obviousness over Bell and Cook.

O. The Obviousness Rejection of Claims 20
and 21 over Bell, Cook, and Apps ‘677

Claim 20 is reproduced below:
20. The pallet as recited in Claim 13, further including
a plurality of gussets, wherein the deck includes a
lip and at least one of the plurality of gussets
extends from the lip of the deck to at least one of
the pair of opposed side walls.

The Examiner determined that all features except for “a plurality of
gussets, wherein the deck includes a lip and at least one of the plurality of
gussets extends from the lip of the deck to at least one of the pair of opposed
side walls” are accounted for by the combination of Bell and Cook. (Ans.
23:3-8). The Examiner relied on Apps ‘677 as teaching that missing feature.
(Ans. 23:9-11).
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

35

Apps ‘677 discloses a pallet made of synthetic resin. (Apps ‘677
Abstract:1). The pallet of Apps ‘677 comprises an upper deck and a lower
deck. (Apps ‘677 Abstract:3). Annotated Figure 2 of Apps ‘677,
reproduced below, shows a bottom perspective view of an embodiment of
the pallet of Apps ’677.

Annotated Figure 2 showing a bottom perspective
view of an embodiment of the Apps ’677 pallet

The Examiner determined that Apps ‘677 shows a plurality of gussets D,
wherein at least one of the plurality of gussets extends from the lip E of deck
10 to at least one of a pair of opposed side walls F. (Ans. 23:9-11). The
Examiner’s reasoning in including gussets from Apps’ 677 in the combined
structure as suggested by Bell and Cook is to provide structural
reinforcement to the combined structure of Bell and Cook. (Ans. 23:14).
The Appellant argues that Apps ‘677 does not disclose reinforcement
pockets. (Brief 22:5). The Appellant’s argument is misplaced. As
discussed above, one cannot attack references individually where the
rejection is based on combinations of references. In re Keller, 642 F.2d at
426; In re Merck, 800 F.2d at 1097. The Examiner relied on the
combination of Bell and Cook for suggesting a reinforcement pocket. (Ans.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

36

23:3-5). The question is whether in light of the teaching in Apps ‘677 of the
usefulness of gussets to provide structural reinforcement in a pallet, it would
have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art to include gussets that
extend from a lip of a deck to a wall of a reinforcement pocket of a pallet.
Apps ‘677 shows gussets D that extend from the lip E of a deck to an
opposing wall F. (Apps ‘677 Figure 2). The Examiner found that the
gussets D serve to provide structural reinforcement in a pallet assembly.
(Ans. 23:14). In light of that finding, for pallets with a reinforcement pocket
such as that disclosed in the combination of Bell and Cook, it would have
been apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art that the same advantages
can be achieved by placing the same structure in the extension between the
lip of a deck to an opposing wall of a reinforcement pocket of the pallet in
the combination of Bell and Cook. There is no apparent reason why the
gussets would work and function only in the pallet assembly of Apps ‘677.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claim 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness Bell, Cook, and
Apps ‘677.
Appellant has not argued the merits of claim 21, apart from that of
claim 20. Accordingly, we are also not persuaded of error in the rejection of
claim 21.

Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

37

P. The Obviousness Rejection of Claim 25 over Bell, Cook, and Breezer

Claim 25 is reproduced below (emphasis added):
25. The pallet as recited in Claim 11, wherein the
peripheral wall of each of the plurality of columns
comprises two pairs of opposed side walls and
wherein at least one of the plurality of columns
includes a plurality of notches with at least one
notch being formed in each opposed side wall
from at least one of the pairs of opposed side
walls.

The Examiner determined that all of the features except for “wherein
at least one of a plurality of columns includes a plurality of notches with at
least one notch being formed in each opposed side wall from at least one of
the pairs of opposed side walls” are accounted for by the combination of
Bell and Cook. (Ans. 24:3-8). The Examiner relied on Breezer as teaching
that missing feature. (Ans. 24:8-10).
Breezer discloses a reinforced twin-sheet pallet assembly. (Breezer
Abstract:1). The pallet assembly of Breezer has an upper sheet and a lower
sheet and both sheets are in fixed parallel relationship to each other.
(Breezer Abstract:3-6). Annotated Figure 1 of Breezer, reproduced below,
shows a perspective view of Breezer’s pallet.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

38

Annotated Figure 1 showing a perspective view of Breezer’s pallet
The Examiner determined that Breezer discloses a column 38 that
includes a plurality of notches H with at least one of the notches being
formed in each opposed side wall from one of the pairs of opposed walls.
(Ans. 24:8-10). The Examiner’s reasoning for including notches from
Breezer in the combined structure of Bell and Cook is to provide additional
structural reinforcement to the combined structure of Bell and Cook. (Ans.
24:15-16).
The Appellant argues that Bell teaches away from the proposed
modification of including the notches disclosed by Breezer. (Brief 22:22-
23). The Appellant’s argument is misplaced. As we have explained above,
silence or disclosure of something different does not amount to a teaching
away. Appellant has not identified any disclosure in Bell which indicates
that notches should not be included or embodied within its support columns.
Breezer discloses notches H in each of its columns 38. (Ans. 24:8-
10). The Examiner found and Appellant does not dispute that notches H
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

39

serve to provide additional structural reinforcement in a pallet assembly.
(Ans. 24:15-16). In light of that teaching, for pallets with columns such as
that disclosed in the combination of Bell and Cook, it would have been
apparent to one with ordinary skill in the art that the same benefits can be
achieved by using the notches disclosed in Breezer in the columns of the
pallet in the combination of Bell and Cook. There is no apparent reason why
the notches would work and function only in the pallet assembly of Breezer.
For the foregoing reasons, we are not persuaded of error in the
rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 for obviousness Bell, Cook, and
Breezer.
CONCLUSION
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 4, and 26-30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over Cook, Apps ‘081, and LeTrudet is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 5, 6, and 31 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, and Woolworth is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 7 and 32 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, Woolworth, and Shuert is reversed.
The rejection of claims 46 and 47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, and Shuert is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 33, 34, 36, 42, 43, and 45 under 35 U.S.C. §
103 as obvious over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, and Itoda is reversed.
The rejection of claims 35 and 44 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Cook, Apps ‘081, LeTrudet, Itoda, and Smyers is reversed.
The rejection of claims 1, 3, 26, and 48 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over LeTrudet and Apps ‘081 is affirmed.
Appeal No. 2010-007734
Application 11/517,809

40

The rejection of claims 8-10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Itoda is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, and Bell is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and Woolworth is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and Woolworth is reversed.
The rejection of claims 14-19 and 40 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and Wharton is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 41 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over
LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, Wharton, and Itoda is reversed.
The rejection of claims 14, 15, 37, and 38 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
obvious over LeTrudet, Apps ‘081, Bell, and Wullenweber is reversed.
The rejection of claims 11 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Bell and Cook is affirmed.
The rejection of claims 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious
over Bell, Cook, and Apps ‘677 is affirmed.
The rejection of claim 25 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Bell,
Cook, and Breezer 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).

AFFIRMED-IN-PART