Appeal 2007-0796
Application 10/236,088
40, as illustrated in Figure 1 of Mengel, appears to be simply a conventional
threaded cap. The Examiner determines it would have been obvious in view
of Fisher and Klophaus to store a leaflet or information package within the
cap as an alternative source of storage (Ans. 9).
The issue before us is whether modification of Mengel to store a
leaflet or information package within the cap of Mengel's container would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
Appellant's invention. Appellant argues that (1) neither Klophaus nor Fisher
teaches a cap having an extendable and retractable elongated element
disposed therein and thus cannot be relied upon for a suggestion of the
proposed modification; (2) the Examiner has not set forth the requisite
motivation that would lead to the combination proposed by the Examiner;
(3) incorporation of a leaflet into the cap of Mengel is not even structurally
possible because Mengel teaches a standard cap lacking any internal storage
compartments; and (4) an informational package of the type taught by
Mengel would not fit within the cap of Mengel (App. Br. 27).
As to Appellant's first argument, we do not agree that Klophaus and
Fisher do not teach a cap having a retractable and extendable elongated
element as claimed. Klophaus discloses use of its extendable and retractable
calendar device on a pen cap and Fisher's barrel 11, which houses the
calendar unit or cartridge, is threaded onto the top of a mechanical pencil,
covering the eraser on the mechanical pencil in the manner of a cap.
Accordingly, both Klophaus and Fisher are at least suggestive of a cap for a
device having specific utility, the cap housing a retractable and extendable
strip bearing calendar or other like indicia.
20
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013