Appeal No. 2006-1227 Παγε 6
Application No. 09/960,606
1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). That is, something in the prior art as a
whole must suggest the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the
combination. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730
F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984). In determining
obviousness/nonobviousness, an invention must be considered "as a whole," 35 U.S.C.
§ 103, and claims must be considered in their entirety. Medtronic, Inc. v. Cardiac
Pacemakers, Inc., 721 F.2d 1563, 1567, 220 USPQ 97, 101 (Fed. Cir. 1983).
In the present case, we do not find motivation to combine the teachings of
McKenzie with the teachings of Przytulla and Hammes. Instead, we agree with the
appellants that as McKenzie discloses that it is advantageous to separately form the
sleeve 40 (col. 5, lines 33 to 37). Therefore, there would be no motivation to form the
body 11 and sleeve having a body, top and bottom structure integrally molded in a
single blow molding operation. In addition, we do not find that there is motivation to
modify the McKenzie device so as to have cylindrical walls as McKenzie specifically
discloses that the shape and configuration on the containers promote stacking of nine
containers on a conventional 48 inch X 42 inch pallot and provides a stable structure
which can be readily handled, lifted and stacked (col. 5, lines 38 to 48).
In view of the foregoing, we will not sustain this rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007