Appeal No. 96-3064
Application 08/089,512
of the interior side of the rear label 30 is visible. Therefore,
we are in agreement with the examiner that Marks discloses
providing a bottle with a front label formed with a cut-out
portion which reveals the product in the bottle and shows a
portion of the back label through the product in the bottle.
However, with respect to the other method claim steps in the
independent claims on appeal, we find no teaching or suggestion
of any of these steps in the patent to Marks. For example, there
is no teaching or suggestion in Marks of placing the windshield
treatment fluid in the liquor bottle of Marks. Likewise, there
is no teaching or suggestion in Marks, of shaking the bottle to
cause small bubbles to form in the liquor disclosed in Marks, let
alone, causing small bubbles to form in the windshield treatment
placed in the bottle of Marks. There is no teaching in Marks
that the liquid contained in the bottle would need shaking for
any reason, not to mention, the examiner's argued reason of
properly mixing the product. We can only conclude that here, the
examiner relied upon hindsight to arrive at the determination of
obviousness. It is impermissible to use the claimed invention as
an instruction manual or "template" to piece together the
teachings of the prior art so that the claimed invention is
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007