Interference No. 103,640
is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Keller, 642
F.2d at 425, 208 USPQ at 881 ( quoting In re Wood, 599 F.2d 1032,
202 USPQ 171 (CCPA 1979)).
With respect to the heat sealing technologies
discussed in ¶¶ 7, 8, and 9, here again, the testimony appears to
be that the particular polyethylene film of Ausnit ‘787 could not
be bodily inserted, without modification, into the form, fill,
and seal machine of Ausnit ‘533. We reiterate that bodily
incorporation is not the correct standard for § 103, and the
particular heaters, like the precise polymer compositions, to be
used in the claimed process or apparatus would have been a matter
of choice for one of ordinary skill.
We have carefully considered the objective evidence of
nonobviousness filed by the senior party during the motions
period in opposition to the motion for judgment, and have
reached the conclusion that it is entitled to little weight.
Accordingly, considering all evidence both for and against
obviousness, it is our conclusion that the evidence for
obviousness substantially outweighs any evidence against
obviousness. Therefore, we concur in the obviousness deter-
mination made by the APJ in his motion decision and with the
ex parte panel of this Board that considered and affirmed a
18
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007