Appeal No. 98-1428
Application No. 08/590,388
Contrary to the examiner’s reasoning on pages 3-4 of the
answer, we do not consider that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art
to have employed an adhesive strip along the bag
upper edge in the device of Metcalf, in view of
the adhesive mounting strip teaching in Meroney,
motivated by the cost savings of employing such
mounting teaching and the elimination of the
need for the channel member in Fig. 1 of
Metcalf.
Like appellant, we see no teaching or suggestion in
either Metcalf or Meroney which would have motivated one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine these references so as to
result in eliminating the frame structure (10) or (18) of
Metcalf and in application of an adhesive strip directly to
the bag liner (4) of Metcalf, as is urged by the examiner. If
anything, it would appear to us that one of ordinary skill in
the art considering the collective teachings of these patents
would have, at best, found it obvious to substitute the
attached frame structure of Meroney for the separate frame
structure of Metcalf, thus basically resulting in essentially
the same structure already disclosed in Meroney. For these
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007