Appeal 2007-1593
Application 10/462,972
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention would
have recognized that the use of texturing for aesthetic appeal would improve
Alden’s mailer in the same way as Schoberg and, further, would have been
fully capable of applying such texturing on any desired surface of Alden’s
mailer with predictable results. Accordingly, the use of texturing on any
surface, including an inner surface of container 11, amounts to nothing more
than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their established
functions and thus would have been obvious.
Rejections (4) and (5)
In rejecting claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 14, 21, and 23, the Examiner starts
with the receptacle of Danielson, disclosed for containing small totable
products, such as compact batteries, vitamins, pharmaceuticals, keys, etc.
(Danielson, col. 1, ll. 14-20) and determines that it would have been obvious
to provide card securing means, of the type taught by Alden, on the outside
of the receptacle and to make the receptacle transparent to permit the
products contained inside to be viewed without opening the receptacle
(Answer 4-5 and 11). Appellant argues that the references provide no
suggestion to include card securing means on Danielson’s receptacle
(Appeal Br. 9) or suggestion to make Danielson’s receptacle transparent
(Appeal Br. 9-10). Accordingly, the issue presented with respect to rejection
(4) is whether Appellant has demonstrated the Examiner erred in
determining these modifications would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art.
As noted above, while there must be some articulated reasoning with
some rational underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness, a
specific teaching or suggestion for the modification need not be expressly
11
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013