Appeal No. 1997-3243
Application 08/290,093
independent claim. Appellant argues (brief, page 6) that the
declaration of Jenkins (filed March 31, 1995, paper no. 15)
indicates that Parrotta applies his adhesive after the roll is
unwound. The examiner does not present any evidence that one
of ordinary skill in the art would have interpreted this
reference in a manner contrary to Jenkins’ interpretation.
The examiner argues that even if Parrotta applies his
adhesive after the roll is unwound, it is within the level of
ordinary skill in the art to apply adhesive to a web prior to
the web being wound into a roll (answer, pages 3-5). The
relevant inquiry, however, when determining whether it would
have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art to modify the prior art so as to arrive at a claimed
invention, is not whether such a modification would have been
within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art
but, rather, is whether the teachings from the prior art
itself would have fairly suggested the modification to such a
person. See In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 1051, 189 USPQ
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007