Appeal No. 97-2491
Application 08/514,010
The references of record relied upon by the examiner in support of a rejection under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 are:
Sperry 4,800,708 Jan. 31, 1989
Willden et al (Willden)4,999.975 Mar. 19, 1991
Claims 33, 34, 40 and 41 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Sperry in view of Willden.
The examiner found that “Sperry substantially teaches the claimed invention, but provides
means for feeding two webs to be sealed together instead of feeding one center-folded web to be
sealed for forming cushions” and that “Willden et al teaches the conventionality of feeding one center-
folded web for forming cushions in an analogous system” (final rejection (Paper No. 7), page 4).
Based on these findings, the examiner concluded that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art “to provide means for feeding and sealing the edge of a center-folded web for forming
cushions in the system of Sperry in order to provide a simplified system which does not require dual
web feeding means or dual edge sealers” (final rejection (Paper No. 7), page 4). Implicit in the
rejection is the examiner’s position that the Sperry device modified in the manner proposed would
result in an apparatus that corresponds to the claimed subject matter in all respects.
The complete statement of the examiner’s position is found in the final rejection and in the
examiner’s answer (Paper No. 14).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007