Appeal 2006-2929
Application 10/859,030
suggested modifying Amann by making the labels/markers in the form of
bracelets.
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 an applicant. 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. The test
for an implicit showing is what the combined teachings, knowledge of one
of ordinary skill in the art and the nature of the problem to be solved as a
whole would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1316-17 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
“However, rejections on obviousness grounds cannot be sustained by mere
conclusory statements; instead, there must be some articulated reasoning
with some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of
obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed.
Cir. 2006).
Hofer discloses an identification bracelet comprising an upper layer 5
adhered to a lower layer 6 with an adhesive layer 7, the lower layer 6 having
die cuts 10 therein to form one or more removable sections 11. The bond
between the lower layer 6 and the adhesive layer 7 is weaker than the bond
between the upper layer 5 and the adhesive layer 7 (Hofer, col. 3, ll. 13-30).
In other words, Hofer’s lower layer 6 is effectively a release layer removably
adhered to the upper layer 5 and adhesive layer 7. The weaker bond
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013