Appeal 2007-2582
Application 10/800,652
Appellants contend that the Examiner erred in indicating that the
claimed subject matter would have been obvious. More specifically,
Appellants have argued that the Office Action failed to provide “any
teaching that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to make such a
modification,” as provided in the rejection. (Br. 5, emphasis in original).
Appellants also argue that the teaching or suggestion to make the claimed
combination must be found in the prior art, and not in applicant’s disclosure.
(Br. 5). Appellants urge that given that the elongated container of Sinopoli
is affixed to a flat surface, there would be no need to provide such an
apparatus with a releasable cord, since there would be no danger that the
elongated container would be pulled off the counter or overturned. (Br. 5).
The Examiner finds that the necessary motivation was supplied and
that it would have been obvious to incorporate Lau's releasable cord into
Sinopoli's device based on the combined disclosures of Sinopoli and Lau
(Answer 6).
We note: Appellants have not addressed the patentability of claims 1,
2, 5, 6 and 11 separately, nor have Appellants addressed the Examiner’s
rejections of claims 4, and 7 through 10. Thus, we concern ourselves with
representative claim 1.
We affirm.
ISSUE
Have Appellants shown that the Examiner has failed to establish that
one skilled in the art would have incorporated Lau's releasable cord into
Sinopoli's device to produce a safety electrical accessory as required by
claim 1?
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013