Appeal No. 2000-1025
Application No. 08/726,643
strip 234 of adhesive is used to connect the confronting portions
of the inwardly turned or inwardly rolled lateral edges of the
stock webs together, to maintain the dunnage product P’ in pad-
like form” (column 9, lines 2-6).
As for the “alternatingly crumpling” step of appealed method
claim 1, we find nothing and the examiner points to nothing in
Ottaviano (or the other applied prior art) which teaches or would
have suggested this step. In this regard, it is significant that
the examiner has not specifically addressed this step in his
exposition of the rejections before us. It is further
significant that, in the “Response to Argument” section of the
answer, the examiner has not responded to the appellant’s
arguments concerning this step. These circumstances compel a
conclusion that the applied prior art would not have suggested
the step in question.
For the above stated reasons, we cannot sustain the
examiner’s Section 103 rejection of claims 1-13 as being
unpatentable over Ottaviano in view of Givens or his alternative
Section 103 rejection of claim 6 as being unpatentable over
Ottaviano in view of Givens and Baldacci.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007