Ex Parte Baker - Page 12

                Appeal 2007-1593                                                                             
                Application 10/462,972                                                                       
                found in the references, as we “can take account of the inferences and                       
                creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.”  KSR                
                Int’l., 127 S.Ct. at 1741, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.  As noted by the Examiner                      
                (Answer 11), Alden evidences that a label or card may be secured on the                      
                exterior surface of a container for shipping or for identification.  We further              
                point out, as discussed above, that Alden teaches that providing a non-                      
                adhesive securement of the identification/address label offers the advantage                 
                that the container can be used hundreds of times or more without the                         
                problem of adhesive labels building up and eventually requiring removal                      
                (Alden, col., ll. 14-15 and 35-55).  One of ordinary skill in the art at the time            
                of Appellant’s invention would have appreciated, first, that a non-adhesive,                 
                reusable label system identifying the owner or recipient of the small totable                
                products, such as vitamins or pharmaceuticals, or the identity of the products               
                themselves, to prevent a mixup with the vitamins or drugs of others, would                   
                be desirable and, further, that such a label system as taught by Alden could                 
                be easily implemented on Danielson’s container to permit subsequent use by                   
                other owners or recipients or for different items or drugs for subsequent                    
                illnesses with predictable results.  We therefore conclude that providing card               
                securing means on the receptacle of Danielson is nothing more than the                       
                predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions               
                and, thus, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art.                      
                      As for making Danielson’s receptacle transparent, Perrin and Hobbs                     
                establish that the use of transparency for containers for the purpose of                     
                permitting the contents of the container to be seen whether the container is                 
                open or closed was known at the time of Appellant’s invention.  The                          
                advantage of transparency is both notorious and technology-independent.                      

                                                     12                                                      

Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013