Appeal No. 2004-1897
Application No. 09/455,664
Obviousness4
We do not sustain the rejection of claim 5 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over O'Flynn in view of
Martindale.
The patent to Martindale teaches a strainer for teapots
(Figs. 1 and 2). The strainer 10 (Fig. 4) is formed of a single
piece of wire-fabric, e.g., perforated metal, and is housed in a
strainer supporting frame (preferably stamped from a single piece
of metal), which frame is depicted in Fig. 3. A collective
assessment of the O'Flynn and Martindale disclosures reveals to
us that they would not have been suggestive of the now claimed
invention. In particular, this panel of the Board readily
perceives that the Martindale teaching does not overcome the
noted deficiency of the O'Flynn patent, i.e., Martindale would
4 The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of
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).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007