Appeal 2007-0293
Application 10/630,982
material may be used for both the container and the main body member
[shield]. We determine that the Examiner has identified an implicit
motivation for the modification of Carl, namely that one of ordinary skill in
this art would have been motivated by the well-known use of recycling and
economic sense to have used any scraps of plastic material leftover from the
container formation in the making of the shield of the same plastic material
(Answer 7-8).3 It is well established that economics alone can provide the
motivation or suggestion to modify a reference. See In re Clinton, 527 F.2d
1226, 1229, 188 USPQ 365, 367 (CCPA 1976). Recycling has also been
recognized as a cost-effective measure. See In re Marsheck, 438 F.2d 606,
608-09, 168 USPQ 721, 723 (CCPA 1971). Therefore, especially in view of
the teachings of White regarding the trend of recycling plastics in the
container art, we determine that the Examiner has met the initial burden of
identifying the reason or suggestion to modify the process of Carl to yield
the claimed subject matter.
With regard to claim 15, Appellant argues that Carl fails to disclose
that the main body member 10 is removably held on a conveyor, let alone by
a friction fit (Br. 14). With regard to claim 16, Appellant additionally argues
that Carl does not disclose that the chuck 10 is capable of being disposed of
during a shutdown (Br. 15).
3 There is no dispute that “recycling” includes recycling of scraps (Answer
8).
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013