Appeal 2006-2827
Application 09/883,893
multifunction device than its use as a bathroom tissue cover in the bathroom
environment, which it distinguishes from the bathtub or shower. Thus, Wilson
teaches the use of the multifunction device in the shower as a soap dispenser and as
a bathroom tissue cover outside the shower.
Moreover, Wilson teaches the multifunction bathroom device as a water
resistant closure for a roll of toilet tissue, not a box of tissues with an integral
disposal device as disclosed in Yates. Neither Yates nor Wilson provides any
reason for mounting a combination tissue dispenser and disposal in a shower.
While it may appear obvious in hindsight to mount a combination tissue dispenser
and disposal in a shower, we see no reason from the prior art relied upon by the
Examiner why one having ordinary skill in the art would have added this feature to
the method of Yates absent the Appellants’ teaching to do so. The Examiner thus
erred in rejecting claims 40-45 and 54 as obvious over Yates in view of Wilson.
B. Rejection of claims 40, 44, and 46-47 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Cole in view of Wilson.
The Examiner relies on Wilson for essentially the same modification
(mounting in the shower) as he does above. For the same reasons as noted above,
this rejection is improper. In addition, the base reference, Cole, fails to disclose a
wall between the tissue dispenser and the tissue disposal as required by claim 40
(Finding of Fact 8). The Examiner has thus failed to make a prima facie case of
obviousness of claims 40, 44, and 46-47 over Cole in view of Wilson.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013