Appeal 2007-2110
Application 10/223,408
obviousness, there must some be “some articulated reasoning with some rational
underpinning to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.” In re Kahn, 441
F.3d 977, 988, 78 USPQ2d 1329, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2006). However, we disagree
with Appellants’ contention that the Examiner has failed to provide a reason why a
modification of Moreno would have been obvious in view of Maloney.
In rejecting claim 1, the Examiner held that it would have been obvious to
one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was made, “to
incorporate the teachings of Maloney into the invention of Moreno…in order to
ensure that a proper quantity of goods had been placed in the storage cabinet, as
taught by Maloney” (Answer 6). We find that the Examiner has established the
proper rationale for combining Moreno and Maloney. Both Moreno and Maloney
are directed to lockers for securely storing articles to be delivered or dispensed
(Findings of Fact 3, 24). Moreno clearly discloses that any number, size, shape,
and type of locker may be utilized (Finding of Fact 7). Maloney discloses a
storage cabinet for securely dispensing small articles, e.g., drugs, which require
added security (Finding of Fact 24). Therefore, the combination of Moreno and
Maloney is merely the substitution of one storage cabinet for another. As such, we
find the Examiner’s holding that it would have been obvious to utilize the
teachings of Maloney, for example, the use of a scale or camera to inspect the
articles at the time of delivery or pick-up, in the system of Moreno in order to
ensure that a proper quantity of goods had been placed in the storage cabinet,
sufficient to support the legal conclusion of obviousness.
18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013