Appeal No. 2004-0046 Page 8
Application No. 10/001,313
portion of the outer base nearest the outer wall both come in contact with the flat
surface. As shown in Figure 2 of Emery, edge 17 of the rim extension 15 (i.e., the outer
base) does not contact the flat surface S.
With regard to this difference, in applying the above-noted test for obviousness,
we conclude that it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced Emery's rim extension 15 having a
channel 16 (i.e., gutter or trap) with a flat rim extension as suggested and taught by
Sinaiko's base 7 and thus when the flat rim extension (i.e., the outer base) is placed on
a flat surface the edge of the flat rim extension and the portion of the flat rim extension
nearest the outer wall both come in contact with the flat surface. The motivation for this
modification to Emery comes from (1) the applied prior art teaching two known
alternatives for achieving the same function2 (i.e., prevention of tipping), and
(2) Emery's teaching that his rim extension 15 preferably, although not necessarily, is of
channel cross-section as indicated at 16 thus suggesting to an artisan that other
configurations are feasible.
2 In this regard, it must be borne in mind that where two known alternatives are interchangeable
for their desired function, an express suggestion of the desirability of the substitution of one for the other is
not needed to render such substitution obvious. See In re Fout, 675 F.2d 297, 301, 213 USPQ 532, 536
(CCPA 1982); In re Siebentritt, 372 F.2d 566, 568, 152 USPQ 618, 619 (CCPA 1967).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007