Appeal 2007-0364
Application 09/998,661
481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984). Evidence of a suggestion, teaching, or motivation
to combine the prior art teachings may flow from the prior art references
themselves, the knowledge of one of ordinary skill in the art, or, in some
cases, from the nature of the problem to be solved. See Pro-Mold & Tool
Co. v. Great Lakes Plastics, Inc., 75 F.3d 1568, 1573, 37 USPQ2d 1626,
1630 (Fed. Cir. 1996).
Applying the preceding legal principles to the factual findings on the
record in this appeal, we determine that the Examiner has established a
prima facie case of obviousness in view of the reference evidence. As
established by the factual findings listed above, the applied prior art shows
that triangular shapes were known for chip preforms, as was enclosing and
restraining chip preforms in molds during the frying operation. Similarly,
alternating orientation for triangular chips was disclosed by Khalsa, and the
benefits of removing these uniformly shaped chips in an orientation so that
they could be stacked and packaged in a small, air-tight container was also
taught by the applied prior art.
The suggestion or motivation for combining the applied references as
proposed by the Examiner’s rejection may be found in the references
themselves and the nature of the problem to be solved (Answer 4-6).
Wisdom teaches that the preferred chip products conform to the shape of the
mold so that the chips “may be of uniform size and shape and [are] capable
of being stacked” (see factual finding (2) above). Both Hilton and
MacKendrick disclose the nature of the problem to be solved, i.e., random
chip formation necessitates packaging in large inexpensive containers with a
large amount of air space and breakage (see factual findings (3) and (5)
above). Hilton and MacKendrick both teach the same solution to this
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013