Appeal 2006-1531
Application 10/645,226
According to the Examiner:
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
connection between the bottle and closure cap of Davis ‘904,
providing engaging threads and ratchet teeth to a container neck
and closure cap, as taught by Ostrowsky‘324 to be a mechanical
equivalent to a snap-connection.
….
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the
container shape of Davis’904, forming it to a cylindrical shape,
because Farris ‘870 teaches varying the shape of the container
is well–known, within ordinary skill, and lacks an unexpected
result. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to form the
container of Davis ‘904 to a cylindrical shape, or any other
desirable shape, because a change in form or shape is generally
recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art,
absent any showing of unexpected results. In re Dailey et al.,
149 USPQ 47. One having ordinary skill would be motivated
to form the container at least in view of the teaching of varying
container shape in Farris ‘870.
Final Office Action at pp. 2-3.
In the present case, we determine that the Examiner has not carried
the burden of establishing a prima facie case of obviousness. In this regard,
the Examiner has not satisfactorily explained why one of ordinary skill in
the art would have selected the engaging thread and ratchet teeth features of
Ostrowsky and/or a substantially cylindrical shape for the container for use
in combination or substitution for the specific container neck and closure
device features of Davis. In this regard, Davis teaches the container neck
features thereof address problems with prior art closure devices and the
Examiner has not presented a persuasive and detailed explanation regarding
how the proposed substitutions would be effected such that they would not
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007