Appeal 2007-1135
Application 09/986,264
According to Appellant, “the main object of . . . Bechmann’s
invention [is] to provide all of the ingredients in individual cells . . .” (Br. 4-
5 (emphasis removed)). As to Beck, Appellant asserts Beck’s article is
wetted “by immersion in water or by placing it under a stream of water” (id.
(emphasis removed)). Therefore, Appellant asserts that unlike Bechmann,
Beck does not want to control the amount of water applied to the substrate,
to the contrary Beck teaches that the dry articles are immersed in, or placed
in a stream of, water (id.). From this Appellant asserts that “Bechman and
Beck are describing two entirely different inventions” (Br. 5-6 (emphasis
removed)). Therefore, Appellant concludes that “the two publications would
simply not have been combined because each disclosure is limited to their
unique solutions and provide no indication whatsoever for the alleged
combination proffered by the Office” (Br. 6).
Appellant’s arguments notwithstanding, we find that the
preponderance of the evidence on this record supports the Examiner’s
conclusion that claim 1 is prima facie obviousness in view of the
combination of Bechmann and Beck.
The Federal Circuit has recognized that an “obviousness
determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the
consideration of the facts of a case. Indeed, the common sense of those
skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been
obvious where others would not.” Leapfrog Enters., Inc. v. Fisher-Price,
Inc., 485 F.3d 1157, 1161, 82 USPQ2d 1687, 1690-1691 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
(citing KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d
1385, 1395 (2007) (“The combination of familiar elements according to
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013