Appeal No. 1998-3425
Application 08/502,977
Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), and its progeny, and
that the use of per se rules is improper in applying the test
for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 since such rules are
inconsistent with the fact-specific analysis of claims and
prior art mandated by section 103.
As a further commentary, we also note that we share
appellant’s view that it would not have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art, based on the teachings of Marshall
and Wilfong, to merely alter the configuration of the
plurality of sawtooth-like teeth seen in the dispensing slot
(32) of the bag dispenser of Marshall to be in a form like
that set forth in appellant’s claim 8 on appeal. If anything,
it appears to us that the teachings of Wilfong would have been
suggestive to one of ordinary skill in the art of replacing
the plurality of sawtooth-like teeth in the dispensing slot of
Marshall with an arrangement like that seen in Wilfong,
wherein there is a pair of outer slot portions (e.g., 36, 37)
separated by a single tongue (42). In this regard, we point
to column 1, lines 11-36, in Wilfong wherein the patentee
observes that zig-zag configuration slots, apparently like
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007