Appeal 2007-2111
Application 09/921,204
1 Examiner. As stated by the court in KSR Int’l v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct.
2 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) “[a] combination of familiar elements
3 according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more
4 than yield predictable results. Id. at 1731, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.
5 We are not persuaded by Appellant's contention (Br. 23) questioning
6 why it would have been obvious to have a first party own the
7 shipping/packaging carton. If a company placed a product of their company
8 in a carton for shipping, an artisan would have been motivated to place the
9 name of the company on the carton as an advertisement. This is well known
10 to an artisan in the field of placing advertising on shipping cartons. For
11 example, if Sony Corp. placed a television in a carton for shipping to a
12 distributor or buyer, they would know to place the name Sony on the carton.
13 Nor are we persuaded by Appellant's contention (id.) questioning why
14 a first party would provide an advertisement from a second, distinct party.
15 It is well known in Nascar and in cycling, etc. to have multiple
16 advertisements on products. From this knowledge, an artisan would have
17 considered it obvious to place different advertisements on packages.
18 Nor are we persuaded by Appellant's contention (id.) questioning
19 why it would have been obvious to have a first party determine the size and
20 location of a second party's advertisement. If a first party is allowing a
21 second party to advertise their product on the first party's package, it is
22 inherent that the first party will determine how much advertising space to
23 allow the second party to have.
24 Nor are we persuaded by Appellant's contention (id.) questioning
25 why it would have been obvious to place an advertisement in an area that
19
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013