Appeal No. 98-1032
Application 08/620,658
rejection of claim 19.
We have carefully considered appellants’ arguments
directed to the claims whose rejection we have sustained. Our
position with respect to these arguments should for the most
part be clear from our discussion above. In addition, we
simply do not agree with appellants’ position (brief, page 11)
to the effect that in order to establish obviousness the
problem solved by the inventor must be shown by the applied
prior art. While the problem solved by appellants is one of
the factors to be considered in resolving the issue of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, it is not determinative.
See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042
(Fed. Cir. 1992); In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 692-93, 16
USPQ2d 1897, 1901 (Fed. Cir. en banc), cert. denied, 500 U.S.
904 (1991). Also, to the extent appellants contend that
Kolloch is non-analogous art (brief, page 13), we do not
agree. In our view, Kolloch’s cleaning fluid dispenser is
clearly analogous art in that it is reasonably pertinent to
the problem with which appellants were involved, namely, the
fabrication of a soap dispenser. See In re Wood, 599 F.2d
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007