Appeal 2007-0796
Application 10/236,088
provide health and safety information about their contents to consumers"
(Mengel, col. 1, ll. 8-9) and teaching of applying the inventive retractable
information package concept to containers for pharmaceuticals (Mengel, col.
4, l. 43) suggestive of providing information relating to the use of the
contents of the container. We therefore find the Examiner's application of
the additional teachings of Jeter in combination with Mengel in view of
Klophaus and Fisher to be merely cumulative.
Appellant relies on the arguments presented against rejection (5) in
asserting the patentability of claim 8 over the combination of Mengel,
Klophaus, Fisher and Jeter (App. Br. 28). These arguments are unpersuasive
for the reasons set forth in our discussion regarding rejection (5) above.
Appellant's only additional argument for the separate patentability of
claim 8 appears to be that the teachings of Mengel (a pill bottle), Klophaus
and Fisher (pens), and Jeter (a spill proof drinking cup) cannot be combined
because these references are from different fields and, accordingly, a person
of ordinary skill in the art would not have been motivated to combine them
(App. Br. 28-29). As discussed above, KSR and Dystar make clear that
improvements in one field of endeavor can prompt improvements in other
fields of endeavor where the improvement is technology-independent and
within the technical grasp of a person of ordinary skill in the art. Appellant's
argument, therefore, does not demonstrate error in the Examiner's rejection.
The rejection is sustained.
Rejection (7)
Claims 18, 29-31, 34 and 37:
Appellant's only argument against the rejection of claims 18, 29-31,
34 and 37 as unpatentable over Fisher in view of Jeter and Mengel is that
24
Page: Previous 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013