Appeal No. 2005-1486
Application No. 10/099,423 6
Welshenbach carton in view of Kim runs counter to Welshenbach’s
objective of creating a high strength container and that an
opening formed in a wall of the container would allow the loose
articles stored therein to fall out.
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). In
this regard, all of the disclosures in a reference must be
evaluated for what they fairly teach one of ordinary skill in the
art. In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA
1966). In conducting this evaluation, it is proper to take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the
inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be
expected to draw therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 159 USPQ
342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
In the present case, Kim’s description of the above noted
benefits afforded by the inclusion of a detachable cut-off
portion which defines an opening permitting display of and access
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007