Appeal No. 2000-0116
Application No. 08/950,539
(envelope) would require changing the apparatus so that (1)
the top and bottom enclosure sheets 48, 56 would be advanced
into position together, (2) the adhesive at the leading edges
of the enclosure sheets would be activated by heating elements
at 110a, (3) a means (such as vacuum 86 of Aronsen) would be
provided to hold sheets 48, 56 apart while the pages were
inserted therebetween, and (4) the other heating elements (at
110 b, c, d) then would be activated to seal the enclosure.
However, while these modifications could be made it is
fundamental that the mere fact that the prior art could be
modified to form the claimed structure or perform the claimed
process would not have made the
modification obvious unless the prior art suggested the
desirability of the modification. In re Laskowski, 871 F.2d
115,
117, 10 USPQ2d 1397, 1398 (Fed. Cir. 1989); In re Fritch, 972
F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ 1780, 1783-84 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In
the present case, we find no teaching or suggestion in the
applied prior art which would have motivated one of ordinary
skill to make such extensive modifications of the Lee
apparatus. The examiner seems to indicate in the final
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007