Appeal No. 1998-2179 Page 6
Application No. 08/433,231
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871,
881 (CCPA 1981). Indeed, a prima facie case of obviousness is established where the
reference teachings would appear to be sufficient for one of ordinary skill in the art having
those teachings before him to make the proposed combination or modification. See In re
Lintner, 458 F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972).
As discussed above, Newsome discloses that running shingles, such as the uniform
shingle 11 formed by the disclosed apparatus, have been formed as a convenient way of
transporting signatures from one location to another and into further processing devices such as
quarter-folders, labeling machines, stackers, etc. Reist discloses a device for winding-up
products, such as printed products conveyed in imbricated (shingle) formation. From our
perspective, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the Reist winding apparatus,
into which printed products are conveyed in the form of a running shingle, as the type of
processing device referred to by Newsome and, as such, would have been motivated, by the
combined teachings of Newsome and Reist, to use the running-shingle formation apparatus of
Newsome to transport printed signatures to a winding apparatus as taught by Reist to form the
products into a package. The appellant's argument that it would have made no sense to use the
Newsome apparatus to store again the documents previously stored in stacks 10 is not well
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007