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