Interference No. 103,640
same or similar material. In our view, moisture-proofness and
air-proofness as discussed by the references and Edelman is a
relative concept. For the uses contemplated in Ausnit ‘787,
polyethylene for either the bagwall or sealing strips may be
sufficiently moisture-proof or air-proof. We do not see the
relative property of moisture-proofness or air-proofness as
raising substantial incompatibility problems among the reference
teachings. Therefore, we do not agree with the conclusion of
incompatibility stated in ¶6.
In fact, the conclusion of ¶6 appears to be premised
more on the argument that the polyethylene strips of Ausnit ‘787
could not be bodily incorporated into the bags of ‘533. We are
in agreement with the APJ that bodily incorporation is not the
proper standard for obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. To
justify combining reference teachings in support of a rejection
it is not necessary that a device shown in one reference can be
physically inserted into the device shown in the other. In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981) ( quoting
In re Griver, 354 F.2d 377, 148 USPQ 197 (1966)). The test for
obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference
may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly
suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test
17
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007