Appeal No. 97-4042
Application 08/578,248
well, if for no other reason, than to achieve the self-evident
advantage of accommodating additional beverage containers.
As to (1) the shoulder set forth in claim 7, (2) the
particular degree of taper set forth in claim 8 and (3) the
particular length of the downward projection (i.e., the
particular depth of the beverage receiving well) set forth in
claim 12, we observe that Mackey expressly states that the
beverage receiving wells may “hold different sized cups or
tumblers” (column 1, line 45). Noting that artisans must be
presumed to know something about the art apart from what the
references disclose (In re Jacoby, 309 F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ
317, 319 (CCPA 1962)) and the conclusion of obviousness may be
made from "common knowledge and common sense" of the person of
ordinary skill in the art (In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390,
163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA 1969)), we are of the opinion that one
of ordinary skill in this art would have found it obvious to
provide the centrally beverage receiving well in the tray of
Mackey, as modified by Gregg, with a shoulder in order to
accommodate a beverage container having a complementary
stepped shoulder and to vary the depth and taper of the
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007