Appeal 2006-2032
Application 09/891,948
having a height greater than the height of the side walls 22, 24 of the box. In
fact, the height of the side walls of the cover 12, as illustrated in Fig. 1,
appears to be approximately the same as that of the box side walls 22, 24,
thereby indicating Sauey did not contemplate using the box to contain
objects having a height greater than the height of the box side walls.
PRINCIPLES OF LAW
Where obviousness is based on a combination of prior art references,
the fact finder must determine what the prior art teaches, whether it teaches
away from the claimed invention, and whether it motivates a combination of
the teachings of the references to arrive at the claimed invention. DyStar
Textilfarben GmbH & Co. Deutschland KG v. C.H. Patrick Co., 464 F.3d
1356, 1363, 80 USPQ2d 1641, 1647 (Fed. Cir. 2006).
To establish obviousness based on a combination of elements
disclosed in the prior art, there must be some motivation, suggestion, or
teaching of the desirability of making the specific combination that was
made by Appellant. The motivation, suggestion, or teaching may come
explicitly from statements in the prior art, the knowledge of one of ordinary
skill in the art, or, in some cases, the nature of the problem to be solved. In
addition, the teaching, motivation, or suggestion may be implicit from the
prior art as a whole, rather than expressly stated in the references. See In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
ANALYSIS
It is readily apparent from Apps ‘002, Apps ‘279, and Apps ‘793 that
any tilting of the conventional plastic beverage bottles with which the
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013