Appeal 2007-0343
Application 09/745,702
and a person of ordinary skill in the art would
recognize that it would improve similar devices in
the same way, using the technique is obvious
unless its actual application is beyond his or her
skill.
KSR Int’l., 127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. We must ask whether
the improvement is more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions. Id.
In this case, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized, especially in view of the teachings of Meissner of using
adhesive seals in combination with twisting to provide a more secure and
leakproof closure and Richards' recognition of the desirability to suppress
and, if possible, completely eliminate odors from objects such as soiled baby
diapers, that the pressure sensitive adhesive technique taught by Hamilton
would similarly improve the device of Richards. Further, the application of
Hamilton's technique to the flexible tubing 2 of Richards would not have
presented any unusual challenges to a person of ordinary skill in the art and
would amount to no more than the predictable use of prior art elements
according to their established functions.
Appellants' argument that the addition of adhesive via Meissner's
complicated bubble forming and rupturing technique would contravene the
intended purpose of Richards to avoid complicated mechanical devices is
not well founded, as that is not the modification proposed by the Examiner.
Rather, the modification proposed by the Examiner is to provide pressure
sensitive adhesive in recesses, as taught by Hamilton, separated by
protrusions to prevent premature sealing, on the outer surface of the length
of tubing 2.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013