Ex Parte Kreutner - Page 5

              Appeal 2007-2897                                                                                         
              Application 09/934,777                                                                                   
              name or warning.  (Williams, col. 2, ll. 23-31, col. 3, ll. 33-36.)  Okisawa further                     
              evidences that it was known in the art to provide a tape with repeating room                             
              destinations to reduce the inconvenience of writing the room designation.                                
              (Okisawa, translation 3 ¶10, Drawing 1.)  We further find that the claim language                        
              before us includes the transitional language "comprising", which allows for the                          
              inclusion of additional repeated locations on the tape.                                                  
                    We find that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to                     
              provide a tape with a single, repeating room designation in view of the                                  
              combination of Williams, teaching a preprinted tape with a single address or                             
              destination, and Okisawa, teaching a packing tape with multiple repeating room                           
              designations.  The combination of Williams and Okisawa would not have required                           
              circling of a room designation or location and thus no marking of the box or tape                        
              with a writing instrument would have been required.                                                      
                    Appellant argues Okisawa teaches that a "selected room or location is                              
              circled with a writing instrument so as to identify the destination of the box.  This                    
              not only requires a writing instrument and additional steps, but can present the                         
              problem of smudging, . . . as disclosed in Applicant's application."  (Br. 14.)  We                      
              are not persuaded by this argument.  Non-obviousness cannot be established by                            
              attacking references individually where the rejection is based upon the teachings of                     
              a combination of references.  In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d 1091, 1097, 231                          
              USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986).  The test of obviousness is whether the teachings                        
              of the prior art, taken as a whole, would have made obvious the claimed invention.                       
              In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991).                                  
              Williams teaches pre-printed tape with a single address or destination.  We find                         
              one of ordinary skill in the art aware of the prior art as a whole, including the                        
              teachings of Okisawa of a tape repeating multiple room designations, would have                          


                                                         - 5 -                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013