Appeal No. 2000-0293 Page 7
Application No. 08/766,862
surface 4 with an upturned peripheral edge portion 6 that permits the
trays to be stacked on top of one another. As such, appellant argues
that it would have been pointless to consider adding a knob in the
upper surface of the Martire tray for purposes of stacking.
We agree with the appellant that there would be no motivation
to include a knob in the upper surface of the Martire tray as taught
by Gatt and Grusin to facilitate stacking because the Martire tray is
already stackable (See Col. 3, lines 58 to 61). In addition, we note
that Martire teaches that one of the advantages of the tray therein
disclosed is its flexibility to be used as a standard tray and not be
rigidly limited to the relative positions of the food receptacles on
the tray (Col. 2, lines 11 to 14). As such, in our view, a person of
ordinary skill in the art would not be motivated to modify the
Martire tray so as to have a knob in its upper surface, because such
modification would reduce the ability of the tray to be used as a
standard tray and limit the positions in which the food receptacles
could be placed on the tray.
Therefore, we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of
claims 1, 2, 4 through 8 and 12 through 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
being unpatentable over the teachings of Martire, Gatt and Grusin.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007