Appeal 2007-1593
Application 10/462,972
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of Appellant’s invention would
have readily appreciated that transparency of Danielson’s receptacle would
likewise permit the contents of the container to be seen without opening the
container, thereby permitting the user to easily inventory the contents and
thus making the receptacle easier to use.
In light of the above, Appellant’s arguments do not demonstrate error
on the part of the Examiner in determining that it would have been obvious
to provide a plurality of card securing members on Danielson’s receptacle
and to make Danielson’s receptacle transparent. Rejection (4) is sustained
as to claims 1-4, 6, 7, 13, 14, and 21.
With respect to rejection (4) as to claim 23, Appellant additionally
argues that the Examiner ignores the limitation in claim 23 that the container
is filled with small objects (Reply Br. 4) and that the Examiner has failed to
show where a step of distributing to a recipient is found in the prior art
(Reply Br. 4). The first of these arguments is belied by Danielson’s express
disclosure of use of the receptacle for small totable products (Danielson, col.
1, ll. 17-20). While the step of distributing a receptacle to a recipient is not
likewise expressly taught by Danielson, the preparation of a receptacle with
vitamins or pharmaceuticals in it, by a caregiver, parent or guardian, for
example, for another (the user) and distribution of such receptacle to such
user (the recipient) is a readily foreseeable use of Danielson’s receptacle and
thus would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. Rejection
(4) is sustained as to claim 23.
Our discussion above with respect to rejection (3) applies equally to
rejection (5). For the same reasons, we sustain rejection (5). Specifically,
the improvement of texturing for aesthetic purposes is technology-
13
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013