Ex Parte Dart et al - Page 30


                Appeal 2007-1325                                                                              
                Application 10/065,722                                                                        
           1          Finally, Graham7 addressed a strikingly similar non-analogous art                       
           2    issue as between two liquid containers each with a different closure device                   
           3    and held the containers to be pertinent to one another.  The Court reasoned                   
           4    that the devices were pertinent to each other because both seek to solve the                  
           5    same “mechanical closure problem.” 8  Waterbury, Mueller, Aichert, Lane                       
           6    and De Mars all deal with a mechanical closure in a liquid containers as does                 
           7    Dart, and thus must deal with the same mechanical closure problems.                           
           8                                                                                                  
           9    4. The Motivation Argument                                                                    
          10          Appellants assert the “Examiner has failed to identify any motivation,                  
          11    suggestion, or teaching of the desirability of combining Freek '837 with                      
          12    Waterbury '797 to arrive at Applicants' invention.”  (Br. 9)  To the extent                   
          13    that Dart argues that an explicit motivation, suggestion, or teaching in the                  
          14    art, the argument has been foreclosed by KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127                  
          15    S. Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).  In KSR, the Court characterized the                      
          16    teaching, suggestion, motivation test as a “helpful insight” but found that                   
          17    when it is rigidly applied, it is incompatible with the Court’s precedents.                   
                                                                                                             
                7   Graham involved two patents:  (1) the familiar Graham plow patent and                     
                (2) a Scroggins dispenser patent.  The Scroggins patent is addressed in the                   
                Calmar, Inc. v. Cook Chemical Co., and No. 43, Colgate-Palmolive Co. v.                       
                Cook Chemical Co. part of the Graham opinion and relates to U.S. Patent                       
                2,870,943 directed to a plastic finger sprayer with a ‘hold-down’ lid used as                 
                a built-in dispenser for containers or bottles packaging liquid products,                     
                principally household insecticides.                                                           
                                                                                                             
                8  As between closure devices for liquid containers, the Court held that these                
                devices are pertinent because, “closure devices in such closely related art as                
                pouring spouts for liquid containers are at the very least pertinent                          
                references.” Graham, 383 U.S. at 36, 86 S. Ct 684 at 703.                                     
                                                     30                                                       

Page:  Previous  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013