Appeal No. 2000-0487 Page 6
Application No. 08/856,228
and find ourselves in agreement with the examiner and the
appellant that the applied prior art does not teach or suggest
a cutout opening being surrounded by a printed silhouette of
the article on the face of the carton as set forth in claim 20
(the printed silhouette limitation). To supply this omission
in the teachings of the applied prior art, the examiner made
determinations (answer, p. 4) that the printed silhouette
limitation would have been obvious to an artisan to better
attract customers. However, this determination has not been
supported by any evidence that would have led an artisan to
arrive at the claimed invention. 2
2Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation to
modify a reference may flow from the prior art references
themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art,
or, in some cases, from the nature of the problem to be
solved, see Pro-Mold & Tool Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc.,
75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626, 1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996),
Para-Ordinance Mfg., Inc. v. SGS Importers Int'l., Inc., 73
F.3d 1085, 1088, 37 USPQ2d 1237, 1240 (Fed. Cir. 1995), cert.
denied, 117 S. Ct. 80 (1996), although "the suggestion more
often comes from the teachings of the pertinent references,"
In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453, 1456 (Fed.
Cir. 1998). The range of sources available, however, does not
diminish the requirement for actual evidence. That is, the
showing must be clear and particular. See, e.g., C.R. Bard
Inc. v. M3 Sys., Inc., 157 F.3d 1340, 1352, 48 USPQ2d 1225,
1232 (Fed. Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 119 S. Ct. 1804 (1999).
A broad conclusory statement regarding the obviousness of
(continued...)
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007