Ex Parte Kume et al - Page 6



             Appeal No. 2006-1795                                                                       6       
             Application No. 10/269,057                                                                         


                   Here, although we agree that Kreager is capable of being modified to use the flat            
             sealing area 42 and grooves 44 of Voller, we find no motivation for person skilled in the          
             art to have made this combination absent the teaching of the present invention.  Kreager           
             is directed to solving the problem of sealing bags by a method other than conventional             
             heat sealing methods to overcome the disadvantages of conventional methods, viz,                   
             expense of materials, slower rate of sealing due to heat transfer issues, and high rate of         
             failure of seals produced using conventional heat sealing methods.  Kreager solves these           
             problems by using an ultrasonic sealing apparatus and method.  Voller, on the other hand,          
             is directed to a method of sealing two sheets of flexible plastic material using radio             
             frequency energy that avoids the problem of extrusion of material between the sheets               
             adjacent the sealed area that causes the seal or the areas adjacent the seal to become             
             thinner than the gauge of a single sheet of plastic.  We see no motivation to combine              
             Kreager, which is specifically directed to an ultrasonic sealing apparatus and which               
             teaches away from using conventional heat sealing methods, with Voller, which is                   
             directed to a conventional heat sealing method, to solve the problem that confronted the           
             inventor.  Moreover, we agree with the appellants that there would have been no                    
             motivation to replace the land areas 38, 40 of the ultrasonic sealing apparatus of Kreager         
             with the grooves 44 and the flat surface 42 of Voller, because there would have been no            
             advantage to making the seals in Kreager larger and thus stronger.  Rather, the narrow             
             seals formed by the land areas 38, 40 in Kreager were suited for the purpose of sealing            
             flexible bags of chips, etc.                                                                       
                   As such, we find that the examiner has failed to set forth a prima facie case of             
             obviousness.  From our perspective, the Examiner's rejections appear to be premised on             
             impermissible hindsight reasoning. On the record of this appeal, it is our view that the           




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

Last modified: November 3, 2007