Appeal No. 1997-0233 Page 5
Application No. 08/266,558
35 U.S.C. § 103, the decision maker must bring judgment to
bear. It is impermissible, however, simply to engage in a
hindsight reconstruction of the claimed invention, using the
appellants' structure as a template and selecting elements
from references to fill the gaps. The references themselves
must provide some teaching whereby the appellants' combination
would have been obvious. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18
USPQ2d 1885, 1888 (Fed. Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). That
is, something in the prior art as a whole must suggest the
desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the
combination. See In re Beattie, 974 F.2d 1309, 1312, 24
USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992); Lindemann Maschinenfabrik
GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462,
221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
Eweryd's invention relates to a machine for sealing
material in sheets, which have been pre-coated with beads of
glue affected by heat, preferably electronically printed toner
beads, the beads coming into engagement with each other after
folding the sheet into such as the configuration of an
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007