Ex Parte Hewett - Page 5



            Appeal 2006-2827                                                                                
            Application 09/883,893                                                                          
                   5. Wilson does not teach mounting, or any reason for mounting, the                       
                      multifunction bathroom device in the shower stall for use as a tissue                 
                      dispenser (Wilson, passim).                                                           
                   6. Wilson teaches that “the sloping cover can be attached to the wall                    
                      attachment mounting frame with a smaller overhang so as to prevent                    
                      shower water or water splashed directly on the pivotal sloping cover from             
                      entering into the water-resistant closure” (Wilson, col. 2, l. 65 – col. 3, l.        
                      2).  The mounting frame is shown on the rear portion of the multifunction             
                      bathroom device (Wilson, Fig. 1-3).                                                   
                   7. Cole teaches a tissue dispensing station 11 with an orifice 13 and a tissue           
                      disposal station 15 having an orifice (Cole, col. 1, ll. 45-56, Fig. 1).              
                   8. Cole does not teach that the dispensing station and the disposal station              
                      are separated by a wall (Cole, passim).                                               

                                          PRINCIPLES OF LAW                                                 
                   “Section 103 forbids issuance of a patent when ‘the differences between the              
            subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject                
            matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a               
            person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains.’”  KSR           
            Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 1734, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1391 (2007).                  
            The question of obviousness is resolved on the basis of underlying factual                      
            determinations including (1) the scope and content of the prior art, (2) any                    
            differences between the claimed subject matter and the prior art, (3) the level of              

                                                     5                                                      



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

Last modified: September 9, 2013