Appeal No. 1997-0595 Page 18
Application No. 08/154,911
The appellant argues that since the present invention is
directed toward eliminating shingling and that Engel's system
results in the formation of a series of overlapped sheets "it
would not have been obvious to incorporate the Engel conveyor
system into the Ottaviano cushioning conversion machine." We
find this argument unpersuasive since all of the features of
the secondary reference need not be bodily incorporated into
the primary reference (see In re Keller, supra, at 642 F.2d
425, 208 USPQ 881) and the artisan is not compelled to blindly
follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other
without the exercise of independent judgment (see Lear
Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889, 221 USPQ
1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). It is our opinion that the
combined teachings of the applied prior art would have made it
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art to have mounted a conveyor to the
frame 24 of Ottaviano '776 at the exit opening 74 thereof so
that the cut pad-like dunnage would be conveyed away from the
cutter mechanism 76 of Ottaviano '776 based upon it being well
known in the art as shown by Engel to convey a cut product
away from the cutter mechanism.
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007