Appeal No. 96-3465
Application No. 07/848,856
The examiner has failed to provide a basis for the
conclusion that “providing needlelike members on said mandrel is
a mere obvious matter of apparatus design choices” (Answer,
2
p. 4). See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 1395, 170 USPQ 209,
212 (CCPA 1971) (a proper judgment of obviousness “does not
include knowledge gleaned only from applicant’s disclosure”).
Moreover, the examiner’s reliance on Colombo is not persuasive.
Although Colombo discloses a method for heat sealing plastic film
whereby the film is held onto a mandrel while the film is sealed
and is later released from the mandrel, Colombo uses an
electrostatic charger to hold the film onto the mandrel and
releases it from the mandrel using gas pressure (col. 3, lines
40-44; col. 4, lines 20-34).
Therefore, we agree with appellants that the cited
references, either taken alone or in combination, fail to teach
or suggest the method recited in claim 1.
2
In response to appellants’ argument, the examiner
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007