This is the second case this month in which the court has taken a fairly expansive view of “teaching away.” Here, the mere fact that the reference taught a specific range for locating the tear line on a container and that range did not include the claimed location was sufficient to find that the reference taught away from the claimed invention.
Background / Facts: The reexamination application here on appeal was directed to a carton or box which holds containers such as cans and bottles. The claimed carton had a dispenser-piece with a finger-flap located on top along a tear line for pulling the dispenser-piece either into an open position or fully off of the carton. (Think the “fridge pack” beverage container made popular by Coca Cola and others.) In this regard, dependent claim 2 at issue recited that “the finger flap is located between the first and second containers in the top row.” The closest prior art, Ellis, teaches a tear line amenable to insertion of a finger flap, as taught by another reference, but Ellis’s tear line is particularly arranged in a different location than that claimed.
Issue(s): Whether the location of the finger flap between the first and second cans is obvious in light of the prior art.
Holding(s): No. Ellis specifically states that the tear line is “a distance more than one-half diameter and less than one diameter of one can, preferably about three-fourths of a diameter.” Ellis’s expressly recited range for the placement of the tear-line (i.e., going leftward one-half a can to one can) therefore lies outside the scope of the claimed invention. This was apparently enough for the court to conclude that “Ellis teaches away from having the tear line between the first and second containers.”