Appeal No. 97-2491
Application 08/514,010
See, for example, column 1, lines 40-62 of Sperry where certain advantages and disadvantages of
technique (1) are discussed, and column 2, lines 44-48 of Willden where advantages of technique (3)
are set forth. In particular, Willden expressly teaches that the use of a center-folded sheet of plastic
material to form the bags has the advantage of eliminating the need for forming a separate second side
seam (column 2, lines 44-48; column 11, lines 55-58). From our perspective, one of ordinary skill in
the art would have found the utilization of the single center-folded sheet bag forming technique of
Willden rather than the two separate sheets bag forming technique of Sperry to be nothing more that a
straightforward trade-off between the known advantages and disadvantages of known bag forming
techniques, with the suggestion for using Willden’s single center-folded sheet bag forming technique in
Sperry being for the purpose of achieving Willden’s expressly stated advantage of eliminating the need
for providing the additional means required for forming a separate second side seam.
Appellants’ further argument on pages 7-8 of the brief to the effect that Willden’s use of a
labyrinth side seal teaches away from the concept of a linear or longitudinal side seal, as now claimed, is
noted but is not persuasive of error on the examiner’s part. All of the features of the secondary
reference need not be bodily incorporated into the primary reference (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d at
425, 208 USPQ at 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 (Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip
Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889, 221 USPQ 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1984)).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007