Appeal No. 2006-0228
Application No. 10/158,028
to permit inquiry into other areas where one of even limited
technical skill would have been aware that similar problems
exist. See In re Heldt, 433 F.2d 808, 811, 167 USPQ 676, 679
(CCPA 1970).
As for appellants’ assertion that there is no motivation to
combine Omata and Mahaffey, we must agree with the examiner that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art
from the combined teachings of the applied references to utilize
the attachment member and clip of Mahaffey on the container of
Omata to allow the dispenser therein to be worn on a user’s
person, such as on the user’s belt, pocket or waistband, as
expressly noted in Mahaffey column 3, lines 58-60, and thereby
be readily available to allow a user to dispense the product
contained therein when needed or desired. Appellants’ assertion
that Mahaffey’s teachings are limited to professional and
occupational environments wherein the contents of the dispenser
are required for the given work environment is belied by the
broader teachings therein regarding product dispensers in general
(col. 1, lines 27-29 and lines 35-42; col. 1 line 53 to col. 2,
line 16; and claim 6 of the patent).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007