Appeal 2006-3003
Application 10/390,444
the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her
skill.
Id., 127 S. Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
ANALYSIS
Mattesky’s teaching of coating the display hook or retainer member
with a suitable coating to provide a smooth slippery surface to enhance
appearance and permit sliding of the packages on the hook or retainer
member (FF1) in combination with Willius’s teaching of a low coefficient of
friction coating on the receptacle bar for easy sliding of books by force of
gravity along the inclined span thereof (FF6) and of polytetrafluoroethylene
(FF5), a well known slippery fluoropolymer coating (FF2), in particular,
would have prompted a person of ordinary skill in the art of display hooks to
provide a fluoropolymer coating on the display hook of Mattesky, Brozak in
view of Mattesky, or Kump in view of Mattesky to provide a smooth
slippery surface. The modification involves the mere substitution of one
material with another material known for its suitability as a slippery coating
and would yield a predictable variation whose application is well within the
skill of the art.
The issue of whether or not Willius is within Appellants’ field of
endeavour (Appeal Br. 8-10) is not dispositive, as Appellants, Mattesky, and
Willius all address the problem of providing a slippery coating on a hook or
bar to facilitate sliding of articles along the hook or bar and a person of
ordinary skill in Appellants’ field of endeavour would have recognized the
suitability of the well known polytetrafluoroethylene coating to provide a
slippery surface on the display hook of any of Mattesky, Brozak in view of
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013