Appeal No. 1997-0674
Application No. 08/214,971
taught. However, it is described as being “supported by”
(column 1, lines 37-38) and “supported within” (column 2, line
3) the frame, and is shown in Figure 2 as being within the
frame when being emptied, which does not sustain without
reservation a conclusion that it is self supporting outside
the frame. Also in this regard, there is no mention of the
container being operative outside of the frame, or that it and
its cargo are handled, much less disposed of, separate from
the frame.
Mains discloses a container for a dry cleaning product.
It comprises a plastic tub having a sealed plastic top, within
which is contained a unit dose of dry cleaning product. When
the
container is placed in dry cleaning solvent, it dissolves,
allowing the product within to mix with the solvent.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the prior art would have suggested to one of ordinary skill
in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413,
425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima
facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007