Appeal No. 1999-0391
Application 08/225,229
the housing. In any event, we note that the broad language of claim 22 on appeal merely calls for
increasing the "size" of the housing, and not the "volume" of the housing as in contrast with claim 1.
Given its broadest interpretation, we find that claim 22 is therefore taught or suggested by even Runge
taken alone, since the base portion 10 increases the exterior "size" or perimeter of the housing 8. In
other words, because claim 22
on appeal fails to positively require that the interior "volume" of the housing or lower compartment be
increasing by the addition of the base portion, we find that Runge alone meets all of the salient features
of claim 22 on appeal.
We are not persuaded by appellant’s argument (Brief, page 10) that the examiner’s conclusion
of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning. Clearly, the artisan would have had no
need for recourse to appellant’s disclosure for direction to increase the size of a
lower compartment such as provided by Von Kohorn. All that is involved is the application of
knowledge clearly present in the prior art. In re Sheckler, 438 F.2d 999, 1001, 168 USPQ 716, 717
(CCPA 1971).
Lastly, appellant argues as to dependent claim 26 (Brief, page 11) that Ditto fails to teach or
suggest the features of claim 26. This argument is not understood, since Ditto is applied as to the § 102
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007