Appeal No. 97-2491
Application 08/514,010
the edge opposite the center fold, as well as forming transverse seals to complete each bag. According
to appellants “[e]ach of these systems has its respective advantages and disadvantages” (brief, page 6).
Appellants contend that techniques (1)-(3) “are mutually exclusive of one another in many respects”
such that the examiner’s reliance on Willden as a teaching reference to modify the bag forming
technique (2) of Sperry “is inappropriate” (brief, page 7).
We have carefully considered the issues raised by the rejection of claims 33, 34, 40 and 41 in
light of the examiner’s remarks and appellants’ arguments and evidence of nonobviousness, including
those arguments outlined above. As a result, we conclude that a prima facie case of obviousness of the
claimed subject matter has been established which as not been rebutted by appellants’ evidence of
nonobviousness. Our reasons follow.
It is well settled that the test for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not what the references
individually teach, or for that matter, fail to teach. Instead, the test for obviousness is what the
combined teachings of the applied references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.
In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
It is our view that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily appreciated the various
advantages and disadvantages of the known prior art techniques (1) and (2) for forming bags outlined
by appellants on pages 6-7 of the brief, as well as the center-folded technique disclosed by Willden.
This may be fairly inferred from the teachings of the references themselves.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007