Appeal No. 2004-1246
Application No. 09/960,948
polypropylene in view of Beals’ teaching at column 7, lines 58-63.
Accordingly, we likewise shall sustain the rejection of claims 6
and 17 as being unpatentable over Funcke in view of Beals.
Turning to the examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 12 as
being unpatentable over Kemmerer in view of Beals, we note at the
outset that the majority of appellant’s arguments in favor of
patentable of claims 1 and 12 over this reference combination track
those presented in connection with the rejection based on Funcke in
view of Beals. For the reasons set forth above, these arguments
are no more persuasive here than they were when raised in
connection with the examiner’s first rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a).
Appellant further argues (main brief, pages 18-19; reply
brief, pages 8-9) in connection with the rejection based on
Kemmerer in view of Beals that the requisite motivation for the
proposed modification of Kemmerer is lacking because there is
nothing in Kemmerer that suggests a need to enhance the grip of the
cosmetic applicator brush. We do not agree.
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the
art. 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
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007