Appeal No. 96-3038
Application No. 08/372,069
Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., Inc., 193 USPQ 8, 11 (7th Cir.
1977)).”
Appellants argue (Brief, page 3) that:
The Examiner’s reliance on St. Regis Paper Co. V.
Bemis Co. is misplaced. The St. Regis case is
inapposite in that it dealt with duplicating what
had previously existed in the prior art. In the
instant case, the claims define an invention that
has not previously existed and that has increased
benefits, untaught by the prior art, when multiplied
in a particular way.
We agree with appellants that the St. Regis case is
inapposite to the facts before us on appeal. The examiner’s
mere conclusion that it would have been obvious to place a
second cavity on Morris’ pinched seal, and then terminate the
other end of the second foil 60 in this cavity is too much for
us to believe in the absence of evidence in the record or a
convincing line of reasoning by the examiner. Since neither
evidence nor a convincing line of reasoning has been presented
by the examiner, we will reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103 rejection
of claims 1
through 5.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007