Appeal No. 2006-2060 Page 7
Application No. 10/605,873
mechanisms, we do not see how one teaches away from the other or would have
led one of ordinary skill not to have combined their teachings. Rather, we find that
because both of the references are directed to solving the same problem of
separately storing two products for subsequent mixing and both solved the problem
similarly by using a capsule with a plunger on one part to puncture a sealed bottom
of another part, that one of ordinary skill would have had sufficient motivation to
combine their teachings.
The appellant contends that, in operation, the cutting edge of Bowes would
separate the flat bottom (16) completely from the cup (15). (Appellant’s Brief, p.
6). We disagree. As is clearly shown in phantom in Figure 3 and described in col.
3, lines 60-71 of Bowes, “[a]s the downward movement of the plunger 26
continues, the cutting cylinder 27 cuts further through the cup until finally the
bottom 16 of the cup swings downwardly . . . to open up the bottom of the cup and
allow its contents to fall into the mixing container 11.” As such, Bowes clearly
discloses that due to the inclined surface of the cutting cylinder (27), the bottom
(16) remains attached to the cup when the plunger (26) reaches its fully depressed
position. We further find that Bowes has one prong or cutter at the lowermost
point (34) of the inclined cutting edge (29). (Bowes, col. 3, lines 60-65).
Based on our understanding of the operation of Bowes and English, we
agree with the examiner that there would have been sufficient motivation for a
person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the cutting edge of Bowes to
add another prong (in addition to the prong at the lowermost point 34) to facilitate
initial penetration and cutting of the bottom of the cup. We find that the prior art
relied on by the examiner is directed to the same general problem that was
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007