Appeal 2007-1913 Application 10/299,661 manner proposed by the Examiner (Br. 20). Finally the Appellant argues that even if Perl and Ammarell could be combined, “the combination would not have one or more recess portions ‘positioned closer to the opening of the container than a bottom of the container’ as recited in claim 1.” (Br. 22). The Examiner correctly found that Perl teaches that the bottle may have at least one recess and the or each recess may be formed anywhere in the main body of the bottle (Answer 9, Findings of Fact 1-2). The Examiner also correctly found that Ammarell discloses the bottle having two recesses on the main body near the neck (Answer 9, Findings of Fact 3-4). The Examiner concluded that providing more than one recess on the bottle would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. To the extent the Appellant argues in his pre-KSR Brief that there is no explicit teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine Perl and Ammarell, that argument is foreclosed by KSR. KSR, 127 S.Ct. at 1740-41, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. In addition, Perl does teach that at least one recess in which a finger can be fitted can be formed in the body of the bottle and that the recess can face in any direction (Findings of Fact 1-2). Perl thus suggests the addition of a second recess and the outward orientation of the recesses as required by claim 1. In addition, Ammarell teaches two finger rests positioned closer to the opening of the container than the bottom of the container. On that record, we find that Perl provides explicit motivation to modify its teachings by adding a second recess portion. Under those circumstances, the Examiner did not err in holding that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to 10Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013