Appeal No. 96-2296
Application 08/091,894
tical to that of the applicant to establish obviousness. In
re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 693, 16 USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir.
1990) (in banc).”). In the present case, there is ample
motivation in the cited references from which one of ordinary
skill in the art would have found it obvious to combine the
references in the manner proposed by the examiner. Van
Onstein notes the importance of being able to stack the empty
trays so that “their reduced height saves storage space” (col.
5, lines 22 to 25), and, as noted earlier, deLarosiere
discloses that the use of hollow, tapered columns allows the
columns to fit one within the other, so that empty trays can
be nested one on top of the other, thereby reducing height
(col. 3, lines 60 to 64). This teaching of deLarosiere would
have readily suggested to one of ordinary skill the use of
hollow, tapered columns as the columns of Van Onstein in order
to obtain the disclosed advantages thereof.
Claims 2 to 4 and 7, being grouped with claim 1
(brief, page 4), fall therewith. Appellants group claim 6
separately, but since they present no explanation as to why
they believe it
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007