Appeal No. 2004-0034
Application No. 09/226,467
examiner’s view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it prima facie obvious to provide Powers’s earplug with
Leonard’s detectable insert in order to eliminate the problem of
lost or fallen earplugs in a product processing line.
The appellant argues that Leonard does not teach or suggest
encapsulation of a detectable insert within a foam body.
(Substitute appeal brief, pages 4-6; reply brief filed Mar. 1,
2002, paper 25, page 4.) This argument is unpersuasive for the
reasons well stated in the answer (pages 3-4). While Leonard
teaches the use of a stem to secure the detectable insert, one
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that the foam
described in Powers would necessarily be capable of performing
the same function. That is, one of ordinary skill in the art
would have reasonably expected that the foam described in Powers
would encapsulate and thus secure any inserted object, including
a detectable insert, because the foam is described as having
recovery and memory characteristics sufficient to secure the
free end of a cord. In considering the disclosures of prior art
references, it is appropriate to take into account not only the
specific teachings of the references but also the inferences
which one skilled in the relevant art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom. In re Hoeschele, 406 F.2d 1403,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007