Appeal No. 2002-1181 8
Application 09/576,154
provided on the squeeze bulb would appear not to be inherently capable of functioning
to cause the device to be self-righting.
We fail to perceive any teaching, suggestion or incentive in either reference
which would have led one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the Novak container in the
manner proposed by the examiner. Nor, even if such were deemed to be present, we
are of the view that suggestion exists for providing the device with the weight
distribution limitation required by independent claims 12 and 17. This being the case,
the teachings of the two applied references fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in independent claims 12 and 17,
and we will not sustain the rejection of those claims or, it follows, of claims 15, 16 and
18-21, which depend therefrom.
CONCLUSION
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007