Appeal No. 1998-3001 Application No. 08/318,645 layer, as now particularly claimed, would not have been suggested by the Gin and Fesco teachings, collectively considered. As to the patent to Bosses, we conclude that it does not overcome the deficiency of the Gin and Fesco disclosures. More specifically, the Bosses document, which refers to each of the Gin and Fesco teachings (column 1, lines 18 through 37), simply reveals another alternative to the teachings of the Gin document (melt-blown filter layer sandwiched between inner and outer layers), i.e., a two-ply bag wherein a melt-blown filter ply is inside an outer ply (Fig. 5). Since the evidence of obviousness would not have been suggestive of the claimed subject matter, each of the rejections on appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 103 must be reversed. 7Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007