Ex Parte Sorebo et al - Page 8




              a hygienic condition, and that it was well known to reuse the wrapping for disposal of                    
              used articles.  (See Burrow, col. 1, lines 23-30).  We further find that one of ordinary sk     ill       
              in the art was familiar with using a slider device to open and close resealable packages                  
              and that such slider device was common in packaging applications.  (See May, pa          ge 1,            
              paras. [0002] a nd [0003]).  We further find that the packaging and closure arts deal                     
              generally wi  th straightforward and simple technology.                                                   
                     In add ition to our review of the Graham factors, we also considered the                           
              requirement   of a showing of a “teaching, suggestion, or motivation” to modify       or                  
              combine the   prior art teachings.  This requirement was recently described in In     re Kahn,            
              441 F.3d 977  , 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2006),                                               
                            [T]he  “motivation-suggestion-teaching”  test  asks  not  merely                            
                            what the references disclose, but whether a person of ordinary                              
                            skill in the art, possessed with the understandings and                                     
                            knowledge  reflected  in  the  prior  art,  and  motivated  by  the                         
                            general problem   facing the inventor, would have been led to                               
                            make the combination recited in the claims.   From this it may                              
                            be determined whether the overall disclosures, teachings, and                               
                            suggestions of the prior art, and the level of skill in the art – i.e.,                     
                            the understandings and knowledge of persons having ordinary                                 
                            skill in the art at the time of the invention-support the legal                             
                            conclus ion of obviousness. (internal citations omitted).                                   
                     For the reasons discussed below, we hold that a person of ordinary skill in the art,               
              possessed with the understandings and knowledge reflected in the prior art, and                           
              motivated by the general problem facing the inventor, would have been led to make the                     
              combination recited in the claims.                                                                        
                     “In considering motivation in the obviousness analysis, the problem examined is                    
              not the specific problem solved by the inventi    on but the general problem that confronted              
              the inventor before the invention was made.  Kahn, 441 F.3d at 988, 78 USPQ2d at 1336                     






Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007