Appeal No. 95-5066
Serial No. 07/931,330
from which they depend are nonobvious. In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598
(Fed. Cir. 1988).
6. Rejection of claims 1-3 and 5-7 as unpatentable over Hamuro in view of Newton
Hamuro has been described above.
Newton is directed to the production of collated forms, e.g., for use in business
processing machines such as tabulators and data processing machines (column 1, lines 28-35).
Adhesive is applied as short strips to successive sheets in a stack in a staggered pattern, usually not
exceeding three occurrences in a stack, so that the stack is only slightly thicker than the total thickness
of the sheets comprising the stack (column 2, lines 23-60), thus addressing such problems in the prior
art as form misaligment; forms shifting during folding; stiffening effect and thickness buildup due to glue
buildup, etc. (column 1, line 46 - column 2, line 2).
The examiner acknowledges that Hamuro does not teach staggering welds between
successively welded sheets (Substitute Ans. page 10, paragraph one). However, according to
the examiner, it would have been obvious
to stagger the tack welds between successive Hamuro et al. sheets applied to form a
multilaminate as does Newton ... to reduce the tendency of alignment or registration
defects caused by vertical alignment of bonds as taught by Newton. (Substitute Ans.
page 10)
Appellant argues there is no reason to combine Hamuro and Newton because Hamuro does
not disclose or suggest a problem with coincident welding of green-tape foils and because Newton is
Page 18
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007