Appeal No. 1999-1816 Page 4
Application No. 08/370,540
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See 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). Moreover, in
evaluating such references it is proper to take into account
not only the specific teachings of the references but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied
by the examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
Zlotnik discloses a vandal-proof and theft-resistant
deodorant cabinet for use in public facilities and restrooms.
As shown in Figures 1-5, a housing 1 of the deodorant cabinet
is specifically designed to be removably attached to a frame 3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007