Appeal 2007-0924
Application 10/401,079
creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” KSR,
127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. While Wolfe does not specify any
material for label 20b, Wolfe does teach that the label "is easily replaceable,
exchanged or substitutable by another label 20 in order to update any
information" (Wolfe, col. 5, ll. 31-34) and contemplates that information can
be easily typed or written onto the label (Wolfe, col. 5, ll. 41-42). Any
notion that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have immediately
envisaged one of paper, fabric or plastic as a suitable material for a label
onto which information is typed or written is simply untenable and
disingenuous. Further, Wolfe's teaching that the cover member provides a
device in which the label is protected from wear and tear (Wolfe, col. 1, ll.
35-36) dispels any concern about a material such as paper, fabric or plastic
being too fragile for the disclosed application, especially when viewed in
light of Wolfe's contemplation of an easily replaceable label.
Appellant's arguments fail to demonstrate the Examiner erred in
rejecting claim 10 as unpatentable over Wolfe in view of Yannuzzi. The
rejection is sustained.
Claim 9:
Claim 9 depends from claim 1 and further recites the housing includes
an engagement mechanism to secure the occluding structure to the housing.
Appellant challenges the propriety of the Examiner's reliance on official
notice of the conventional application of locking means for locking a base to
the lid (Ans. 6) to address this claimed feature (App. Br. 18). Both the
Examiner's reliance on official notice and Appellant's challenge thereto are
immaterial to the patentability of claim 9 over Wolfe, as Wolfe discloses
connecting the cap members and cover members, albeit of the devices of
15
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013