Appeal No. 97-2491
Application 08/514,010
Here, the primary reference to Sperry teaches the provision of means for forming linear or longitudinal
side seals, and the advantages thereof, namely, the ability to provide vent openings 42 close to the
eventual top edge of the bag by a relatively simple procedure (column 2, lines 7-9 and 27-32; column
4, lines 51-66; column 5, lines 45-55). Further, Willden does not “teach away” from the use of linear
or longitudinal side seals, as argued by appellants, but rather teaches that the labyrinth side seal
disclosed therein is merely preferred (column 2, line 49).
Thus, when the combined teachings of Sperry and Willden are considered, we are satisfied that
a prima facie case of obviousness of claims 33, 34, 40 and 41 has been made out under the test set
forth in In re Keller supra.
Having arrived at the conclusion that the applied prior art is sufficient to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness of the claimed subject matter, we recognize that evidence of nonobviousness
submitted by appellants must be considered en route to a final determination of
obviousness/nonobviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. See Stratoflex Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713
F.2d 1530, 1538, 218 USPQ 871, 879 (Fed. Cir. 1983). Accordingly, we consider anew the issue of
obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103, carefully evaluating the objective evidence of nonobviousness
supplied by appellants. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445-46, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444-45
(Fed. Cir. 1990); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007