Appeal No. 2005-1237
Application No. 10/227,631 9
32. Figure 1 shows that the columns embody curved surfaces 34
bounding the bottle retaining pockets and that some of the
columns are disposed centrally along the longitudinal axis of the
case.
In proposing to combine Koefelda and Apps, the examiner
submits that it would have been obvious in view of Apps to modify
the crate disclosed by Koefelda “so it comprises a plurality of
central columns disposed along a longitudinal centerline of the
crate for holding two rows of containers instead of four rows to
reduce the size of the crate” (answer, page 5), “for better
securing the bottles within the crate” (answer, page 10) and “so
the inner handle member includes two curved surfaces for defining
two container-receiving pockets for further securing the bottles”
(answer, page 10).
The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a
secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure
of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention
must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references.
Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references
would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. In
re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007