Appeal No. 1998-0080
Application No. 08/177,763
this modification to appellants’ Figure 18 strip to increase
the overall length of the releasable strip [answer, pages 4-
5]. Appellants dispute that the connection in Schmidt can be
considered to be longitudinally end-to-end [reply brief].
We essentially agree with all of appellants’ arguments
as set forth in the briefs. Schmidt does not teach the
longitudinal connection of a series of at least three
releasable strips. Schmidt only connects two releasable webs
together with adhesive strips in the transverse or lateral
direction of the webs. The examiner’s proposed modification
of appellants’ prior art essentially requires that the
releasable strip 71' of Figure 18 be cut into a plurality of
smaller strips that are then simply reconnected together using
adhesive strips. We can see no reason why the artisan would
have cut the integral unit of the admitted prior art into a
plurality of units and then put them back together with
adhesive. None of the alleged problems solved by the applied
prior art are present in the device of appellants’ Figure 18.
The only possible motivation for modifying the admitted prior
art by the teachings of Schmidt would be based on an improper
attempt to recreate the claimed invention in hindsight. As
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007