Appeal No. 1999-0348 Page 15
Application No. 08/663,471
The applied prior art (i.e., Laibow) fails to disclose or
suggest a thermally rupturable seal closing an open end of a
can. While it may have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art at the time the invention was made to have 2
provided a lid, closure or seal to retain the thermally
activated chemical in Laibow's cup 29 prior to its use in his
vaporizer, we see no evidence, absent the use of impermissible
hindsight, as to why it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made
to have utilized a thermally rupturable seal to close the open
end of Laibow's cup 29 prior to its use in his vaporizer.
Accordingly, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 12
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is reversed.
Claim 19
2An artisan is presumed to know something about the art
apart from what the references disclose (see In re Jacoby, 309
F.2d 513, 516, 135 USPQ 317, 319 (CCPA 1962)) and the
conclusion of obviousness may be made from "common knowledge
and common sense" of the person of ordinary skill in the art
(see In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ 545, 549 (CCPA
1969)).
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007