Appeal No. 2006-1902 Page 6
Application No. 10/317,848
of the prior art, and motivated by the general problem confronting the inventor2, to
modify the machine of Taylor to add the offset pads (22, 22’) of Goodenough. The
pads of Goodenough were used to relieve tension on the bag material as the sealing
jaws advanced the bag material through the machine. The Taylor machine did not
have the same need to relieve tension in the bag material, because the Taylor
device advanced the bag material by a separate rotatably driven roller, not by the
sealing jaws.
The examiner’s explanation of the motivation was based on hindsight,
because he looked to the solution discovered by the appellant, viz, “to create a
sinuous or tortuous path in the web of material to make travel of product
therethrough nearly impossible,” as the basis for his finding of obviousness. There
would have been no motivation or suggestion from the prior art to create a sinuous
path in the web of material of Taylor absent the teaching of the present invention.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1-7 and 10.
In the rejection of dependent claim 11, the examiner has determined that the
Taylor machine, as modified by Goodenough, does not teach a deflecting member
that engages the tubular bag material downstream of the closing members and
which laterally deflects the tubular bag material. The examiner relies on
Masubuchi, which relates to a reciprocating form-fill-seal machine, to show a
deflecting member (9) that engages and laterally deflects the tubular bag material
(A) downstream of the closing members (8). (Examiner’s Answer, pp. 8-9). The
examiner finds that it would have been obvious to further modify the machine of
2 We find that the general problem confronting the inventor was that of keeping product out from
between the sealing jaws.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007