Appeal No. 1999-2812 Page 12
Application No. 08/724,049
The obviousness rejection
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 16 to 28
under 35 U.S.C. § 103.2
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).
Claim 16 reads as follows:
A method of operating an orbital saw to transversely
sever superposed elongated web plies into shorter length
products comprising the steps of
advancing, along a linear path, said superposed
elongated web plies having a cross sectional area of at
least about 3.5 square inches (2200 m ), 2
2Normally, when substantial confusion exists as to the
interpretation of a claim and no reasonably definite meaning
can be ascribed to the terms in a claim, a determination as to
patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 103 is not made. See In re
Steele, 305 F.2d 859, 134 USPQ 292 (CCPA 1962) and In re
Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 165 USPQ 494 (CCPA 1970). However, in
this instance, we consider it to be desirable to avoid the
inefficiency of piecemeal appellate review. See Ex parte
Ionescu, 222 USPQ 537 (Bd. App. 1984).
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007