Appeal 2007-1925
Application 09/391,869
results. Thus, the claimed subject matter likely would have been obvious under
KSR. In addition, neither Appellant’s Specification nor Appellant’s arguments
present any evidence that the separation of one pocket into two pockets using an
additional line of adhesive is uniquely challenging or difficult for one of ordinary
skill in the art. Moreover, the separation of one pocket into two pockets using an
additional line of adhesive is a technique that has been used to improve one device
(the photo album of Ruebens), and one of skill in the art would recognize that it
would improve similar devices in the same manner. Because Appellant has not
shown that the application of the Ruebens technique to the combination of Wyant
and Dick would have been beyond the skill of one of skill in the art, we find using
the technique would have been obvious. 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 modify Wyant's and Dick's pocket
insert with an adhesive strip, as taught by Ruebens, for the purpose of defining a
plurality of pockets to hold numerous articles. Because this is a case where the
improvement is no more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to
their established functions, no further analysis is required by the Examiner. KSR,
127 S.Ct. at 1740, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
CONCLUSIONS
We conclude that Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
rejecting claims 1-21 and 32-36.
23
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013