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.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007