Appeal No. 97-2540 Page 7
Application No. 08/339,558
In applying the test for obviousness, we reach the 2
conclusion that the combined teachings of Papaianni and Dziersk
would not have been suggestive of the claimed partition.
Contrary to the examiner's determination (answer, pp. 5-6), we do
not believe that the claimed partition reads on Dziersk's
partition 20. In that regard, it is our opinion that when claims
23 and 27 are read as a whole in light of the specification, the
claimed handle and hand opening must be located in an upper
portion of the partition formed from a pair of adjacent side
walls (i.e., the claimed handle and hand opening must be located
in an upper portion of the pair of adjacent side walls of the
compartments). Thus, the claimed partition must be read on only
Dziersk's side walls 22, 24 and not Dziersk's partition 20 (which
includes handle 36). Since Dziersk's handle 36 is not located in
an upper portion of the pair of adjacent side walls 22, 24 of
Dziersk's partition 20, the claimed handle and hand opening
located in an upper portion of the pair of adjacent side walls of
the compartments does not read on Dziersk's handle 36. Since all
the limitations of claims 23 and 27 are not suggested by the
2The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in
the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,
1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007