Ex Parte Rauworth et al - Page 5




             Appeal No. 2006-1227                                                                Παγε 5                                       
             Application No. 09/960,606                                                                                                       


             Przytulla and Hammes for disclosing a cylindrical side wall and a one-piece integrally                                           
             molded structure molded in a single blow molding operation.  The examiner concludes:                                             
                    It would have been obvious to modify the shape of the side wall to be                                                     
                    cylindrical as a matter of design choice in sacrificing the packing efficiency                                            
                    of rectangular in cross section side walls for cylindrical side walls which                                               
                    have less corner surfaces on their interior allowing faster and easier                                                    
                    cleaning.  It would have been obvious to blow mold the structure into one-                                                
                    piece in a single operation as a matter of design choice to take advantage                                                
                    of a design requiring no assembly of separate parts and a design which                                                    
                    can be manufactured in a single operation eliminating multiple stages of                                                  
                    manufacturing requiring storage, part inventories and multiple machines to                                                
                    perform each stage of manufacturing [final rejection at page 4].                                                          
                    We note that when it is necessary to select elements of various teachings in                                              
             order to form the claimed invention, we ascertain whether there is any suggestion or                                             
             motivation in the prior art to make the selection made by the appellants.  Obviousness                                           
             cannot be established by combining the teachings of the prior art to produce the                                                 
             claimed invention, absent some teaching, suggestion or incentive supporting the                                                  
             combination.  The extent to which such suggestion must be explicit in, or may be fairly                                          
             inferred from, the references, is decided on the facts of each case, in light of the prior                                       
             art and its relationship to the appellants' invention.  As in all determinations under 35                                        
             U.S.C. § 103, the decision maker must bring judgment to bear.  It is impermissible,                                              
             however, simply to engage in a hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention, using                                          
             the appellants' structure as a template and selecting elements from references to fill the                                       
             gaps.  The references themselves must provide some teaching whereby the appellants'                                              
             combination would have been obvious.  In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d                                                 
















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007