Appeal 2006-3311
Application 10/392,525
1 another known fastening system is an obvious substitution. The Appellant
2 invented neither the container nor the fastening system. He simply put two
3 known items together in their intended manner for their intended purposes.
4 Third, the argument that the “objectives” of the references are
5 different and thus they cannot be combined is devoid of legal merit. We
6 observe that each reference relates to a paper container. Second, the
7 Appellant has presented no persuasive evidence that the combination would
8 be inoperable. We have only attorney conjecture. See In re Sponnoble, 405
9 F.2d 578, 587, 160 USPQ 237, 244 (CCPA 1969) (references improperly
10 taken in combination as they would produce a "seemingly inoperative
11 device").
12 Lastly, we observe that Collins’ closures have specific benefits to the
13 security of closing Thiolat’s container. “[I]f a technique has been used to
14 improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize
15 that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is
16 obvious unless its actual application is beyond his or her skill.” KSR Int’l v.
17 Teleflex Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727, 1739, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1389 (2007).
18 Consequently, we affirm this rejection as it relates to claims 1, 5,
19 8-11, and 14-15.
20 The Appellant has argued claim 7 separately.
21 Claim 7 reads as follows:
22 7. The reclosable food container of claim 1, wherein the first pair of
23 opposing side panels extend from a shorter side of the bottom panel
24 than the second pair of opposing side panels.
25
26 The Appellant urges that Collins teaches identical panels and cannot
27 be modified to have a rectangular geometry as identical panels cannot
15
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013