Appeal No. 2004-2238
Application No. 09/878,743
specification is in agreement with the teachings of Elder that it was
conventional for a casket lid to include a crown, a pie, rim members and
a header (Specification, p. 2, line 5 to p. 3, line 5).
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to combine the
teachings of Edwards and Elder and that the statement of obviousness is
merely conclusory (Answer, pp. 10-11, Reply Brief, pp. 1-2). We do not
agree. In an obviousness determination it is important that the prior art
establishes that there was a reason, suggestion or motivation to make
what is claimed and that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had
a reasonable expectation of success in so carrying it out. See In re Dow
Chem., 837 F.2d 469, 473, 5 USPQ2d 1529, 1531 (Fed. Cir. 1988). In the
present case, Edwards teaches a casket comprising a lid (cover) and lower
body which are each separately molded in a mold of the desired shape
(Edwards, ll. 22-24 and 42-47). A person of ordinary skill in the art would
have recognized that a casket lid could conventionally include a crown,
a pie, rim members, and a header. (See Elder’s figures). In light of the
teaching in Edwards that the mold is formed to impart the desired shape to
the casket lid, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have reasonably
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007