Appeal No. 98-1252 Page 12
Application No. 08/642,184
Such contentions are not persuasive. The test for
obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). Here, as we have noted above, Paulson discloses a
dental floss dispenser mounted within the cavity of the cap 12
of a toothpaste container (see Fig. 3) and Grussmark teaches
removably attaching (note column 4, lines 32-34) a dental floss
dispenser 22 to a socket or recess defined by a peripheral wall
18 on the cap 16 of a toothpaste container. In our view, a
combined consideration of Paulson and Grussmark would have
fairly suggested to the artisan to provide a removably mounted
dental floss dispenser on the surface 16 of the cap means 12 of
Paulson (in lieu of the dental floss dispenser 30, 32 disposed
internally within the cap means 12) as taught by Grussmark at
22 in order to achieve Grussmark's self-evident advantages of
easy replacement of the dental floss holder and the ability to
use the toothpaste container and dental floss holder
separately. As to the appellant's contention that the
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007