Appeal No. 1998-0246
Application No. 08/397,536
wrapping material, as taught by Petersen (column 2, lines 22-25), would permit inspection of
the location of the insert relative to where sealing would take place.
The statements in paragraph 7 (pages 6 and 7) of the Schmeichel declaration are not
relevant to the obviousness rejection made by the examiner, in that these statements are directed
to a proposed combination of a prior art method, which, in contrast to Petersen, uses suction or
otherwise to mechanically move the cut web product from one location onto a moving web,
and Dallaserra, rather than to the combination of Petersen and Dallaserra proposed by the
examiner.
After reviewing all of the evidence before us, including the totality of the appellant's
evidence, it is our conclusion that, on balance, the evidence of nonobviousness fails to outweigh
the evidence of obviousness discussed above and, accordingly, the subject matter of claim 17,
and claims 19 and 22-24 which stand or fall therewith (brief, page 3), would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103 at the time
the appellant's invention was made. See Richardson-Vicks Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d
1476, 1483, 44 USPQ2d 1181, 1187 (Fed. Cir. 1997).
Accordingly, we shall sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 17, 19 and 22-24 as
being unpatentable over Petersen in view of Dallaserra.
We shall not, however, sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 20 as being
unpatentable over Petersen in view of Dallaserra and Seiden. Claim 20 recites that the sealing
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007