Appeal 2007-0293
Application 10/630,982
(6) White teaches that, in the food and beverage industry, the trend is
to move away from glass and metal containers and turn to plastic
containers, most preferably polyethylene terephthalate (PET) (col.
1, ll. 13-19; Answer 5); and
(7) White teaches that “[i]n light of the trend toward compulsive
container return laws in various states and a probable federal
deposit/return law, all future container designs must be quickly
and easily recyclable” (col. 1, l. 66-col. 2, l. 1).
“When relying on numerous references or a modification of prior art,
it is incumbent upon the examiner to identify some suggestion to combine
references or make the modification. [Citation omitted].” In re Mayne,
104 F.3d 1339, 1342, 41 USPQ2d 1451, 1454 (Fed. Cir. 1997). A
suggestion, teaching, or motivation to combine the relevant prior art
teachings does not have to be found explicitly in the prior art, but may be
implicit. “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.” In re Kotzab, 217 F.3d 1365, 1370, 55 USPQ2d 1313, 1317 (Fed.
Cir. 2000) (internal citations omitted).
With regard to claim 1 on appeal, the only claimed step that Appellant
argues is the last step, namely that Carl does not teach that the main body
member 10 [the shield] is made from scraps of the first material used to
make the container (Br. 13). As found above, Carl teaches that the same
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013