Appeal 2006-2827
Application 09/883,893
Wilson is contemplating usage of his device in an RV environment where a toilet
is commonly located in a shower for space-saving purposes.
However, my real argument with the majority position is that Wilson fully
teaches the two claimed manipulative steps of the independent claim 40 on appeal.
Wilson is a tissue dispenser. Wilson is mounted in a shower. This is all that the
claim requires. When Wilson is first mounted in a shower, before soap or tissue is
placed therein, has not the method step of mounting a tissue dispenser in a shower
been performed? Isn’t the underlying intention of a user who mounts Wilson in a
shower completely irrelevant as to whether the method step at issue has been
performed? While it is true that Wilson does not teach both a dispenser and
disposal station in the same device, Yates has been cited to show that this method
step or feature is well known. The combination of Yates with Wilson would have
been obvious for the reason given by Yates of insuring other articles such as clean
tissues or the surroundings are not contaminated by the soiled tissues.
Stepping back a little, I believe it to have been obvious to place tissues and a
tissue dispenser anywhere one wishes to blow one’s nose. Accordingly, if one
wishes to blow one’s nose in the shower or perhaps out-of-doors, one of ordinary
skill would have found it obvious to provide a waterproof tissue dispenser in such
a location. Mounting above the floor level, anywhere, was likewise obvious as a
matter of convenience obviating bending or crouching. I see nothing in Appellant’s
independent claim that would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill.
JRG/vsh
13
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013