Appeal No. 1998-0209
Application No. 08/452,153
obviousness rejection (pages 5 through 9) do not convince us
that the examiner erred in rejecting claims 1 through 4 under
35 U.S.C. § 103.
Appellant argues that the Borse patent does not
teach a bottle seal having the characteristics of appellant’s
seal, does not teach a locking bead and confronting recess,
and does not deal with the problem of sealing a filled bottle
when it is tipped over. Appellant also criticizes Jones as
disclosing a “female urinal pan” (Brief, page 6). These
arguments are not persuasive because nonobviousness cannot be
established by attacking the references individually when the
rejection is predicated upon a combination of prior art
disclosures. See In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091,
1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380. (Fed. Cir. 1986).
We note that Jones does provide a long, narrow structure
which “allows for easier maneuvering and placement of the
collection vessel for women” (col. 2, lines 3-7). However, as
we have pointed out, supra, Jones also teaches that the
collection vessel disclosed therein is “readily adaptable for
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007