Appeal No. 96-2296
Application 08/091,894
With reference to appellants’ arguments, supra, it
is inaccurate to state that the tray of deLarosiere only has a
single pillar, since, as discussed previously, the tray shown
in Figure 3, for example, has four pillars 40, one for each
six-pack. These tapered pillars fit into the interior of the
corresponding pillars of the overlying tray when the trays are
stacked (Fig. 4).
Appellants’ assertion that the combination of refer-
ences “does not contemplate the problem solved by the claimed
structure” is not germane to the propriety of making the
combination, since it is settled that:
As long as some motivation or suggestion to
combine the references is provided by the
prior art taken as a whole, the law does
not require that the references be combined
for the reasons contemplated by the inven-
tor.
In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed.
Cir. 1992). See also In re Kemps, 97 F.3d 1427, 1430, 40
USPQ2d 1309, 1311 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“the motivation in the
prior art to combine the references does not have to be iden-
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007