Appeal No. 2006-0228
Application No. 10/158,028
our review, we have made the determination that each of the
examiner’s obviousness rejections will be sustained. Our reasons
follow.
In rejecting claims 1 through 3, 5 and 6 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Omata in view of Mahaffey,
the examiner has determined that Omata discloses the invention
substantially as claimed except that it does not include an
attachment member integrally formed with the molded product
container or a clip adapted to secure the container to another
object. To address the deficiencies of Omata, the examiner
turns to Mahaffey, noting that this patent discloses a product
dispenser including a product container having a mounting
element located thereon in the form of a ridge (116) adaptable to
removably secure a clip thereto to allow the dispenser to be worn
by a user, such as on a user’s belt, pocket or waistband (col. 3,
lines 58-60). From the examiner’s perspective, it would have
been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellants’ invention to provide the product container of Omata
with an attachment member and/or clip like that in Mahaffey to
facilitate attachment of the dispenser to a user’s belt or
another surface. We agree.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007