Appeal 2007-1665
Application 09/534,973
1 (Page 1, ll. 16 to 19). As such, the container is shaped so as to fit in a
2 centrifuging apparatus (Page 1, ll. 74 to 77). In particular, the collar is
3 disclosed as being wholly within the cross section of this bottle so as to fit
4 into a centrifuging apparatus (Page 1, ll. 93 to 98).
5 Jennings discloses a container for measuring liquids that includes a
6 collar that extends beyond the cross section of the container body (Figure
7 3B). The container of Jennings is not configured to be placed in a
8 centrifuging apparatus.
9 DISCUSSION
10 We will not sustain this rejection. The Paley container is configured
11 to be placed in a centrifuging machine. In our view, a person of ordinary
12 skill in the art would not modify the Paley container in view of the
13 disclosure in Jennings because such modification would alter the container
14 so that the container would not fit in a centrifuging apparatus. Therefore,
15 themodification would render the Paley container unsuitable for its intended
16 purpose. See In re Gordon, 733 F.2d 900, 902, 221 USPQ 1125, 1127 (Fed.
17 Cir. 1984).
18 Upon further prosecution of this application, the Examiner is urged to
19 consider whether the claimed subject matter would have been obvious over
20 variously shaped design and utility prior art references directed to perfume
21 or other containers as many of the recited features of the claimed invention
22 appear to be directed to decorative features with no specific utility or
23 purpose and thus would have been a matter of design choice well within the
24 skill of the ordinary artisan.
25 REVERSED
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013