Appeal 2007-2582
Application 10/800,652
interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow since applicants have
the power during the administrative process to amend the claims to avoid the
prior art. In re Zletz, 893 F.2d 319, 321-22 (Fed. Cir. 1989).
ANALYSIS
As pointed out by the Examiner, merely because the device is secured,
does not mean that it cannot be pulled or turned over to the floor. The
elongated container in Sinopoli may be affixed via a suction cup, which is a
non-permanent connection. (Finding of Fact 9). If a user were to trip over
the conductor, the elongated container could be pulled away from its flat
surface. Thus, we cannot agree with Appellants’ argument that there would
be no danger that the elongated container would be pulled off the counter or
overturned. As such, we can find no fault with the motivation supplied in
the rejection.
Additionally, Lau also provides for a safer working environment for
the user. (Finding of Fact 7). While the creation of a safer working
environment may not be explicitly stated in Lau, it is clearly an implicit
goal, given its disclosure. “The use of patents as references is not limited to
what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with
which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant
for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
(quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009 (CCPA 1968)). The tripping
hazard identified in Lau can also be identified in the use of the apparatus
disclosed in Sinopoli. As such, the teachings of the references themselves
provide a motivation for the combination of Sinopoli and Lau.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013