Appeal No. 96-3347
Application 08/160,460
an equivalent of the heat sealing or adhesive means claimed in
claim 1. The examiner has made no such finding of either
structural similarity or equivalency. Therefore, the examiner
has not sustained his burden of presenting a prima facie case
of obviousness.
Thirdly, we note the examiner’s argument that although
the spacing between the adhesive strips 21 of Teed 1272 is not
a fully closed pattern, it would have been obvious to
substitute a single transverse adhesive strip for the strips
21. See page 4, examiner’s answer. We note that there is
absolutely no teaching for this change or substitution of the
adhesive configuration in Teed or in Goodbar as modified by
Teed. An obviousness rejection must be based on evidence.
Where it is not based on evidence, it cannot stand. See In re
GPAC, 57 F.3d 1573, 1582, 35 USPQ2d 1116, 1123 (Fed. Cir.
1995). For these reasons, the rejections of all claims on
appeal is reversed.
REVERSED
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007