Appeal No. 97-0816
Application 08/204,715
preferred that the concentration of the titanium
dioxide be in the range of between about 1 and 4
percent by weight of the total weight of the frame
[column 5, line 53 through column 6, line 5].
The examiner explains the rejection on appeal as follows:
Arvidson discloses applicants[’] claimed bottle
structure. There is not disclosed the incorporation of
TiO2 [sic] for the purpose of reducing light
transmission through the wall. The secondary
references all address this problem by the
incorporation of TiO2. Baird col. 5, line[s] 1-5,
(opacifying pigments), Yum et al, col. 5, line 10 and
Kirshenbaum et al, col. 5, lines 55-60. It is the
position of the Examiner that it would have been
obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
incorporate TiO2 into any layer of Arvidson et al for
to reduce light transmission. Applicants[’] claimed
amount of TiO2 would have been obvious to one having
ordinary skill in the art without undue experimentation
as the claimed amounts are reasonable quantities that
would have expected results [answer, Paper No. 12,
pages 3 and 4].
The appellants, on the other hand, contend that the
examiner’s conclusion of obviousness is unsound because “none of
the foregoing references suggests the addition of titanium
dioxide to more than one layer of a container body. In addition,
none of the references suggests a titanium dioxide level of at
least 5% by weight in at least two layers of a multi-layered
body” (brief, Paper No. 10, page 7).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in
the art. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007