Appeal No. 2002-2125
Application No. 09/078,914
products are in synchronization, and a total redesign of Doane
would be required to print after the labels are applied. (Appeal
Brief, page 9, lines 23-35).
We note that, in justifying the combination of reference
teachings in support of a rejection, it is not necessary to show
that a composition or device described in one reference can be
physically inserted into the composition or device described in
the other. Cf. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981)("The test for obviousness is not whether the features
of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the
structure of the primary reference ..... Rather, the test is what
the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art.").
As above, we note that imbricated or individual transfer are
closely related, as evidenced by Jackson’s feeder stream of
imbricated articles. Again, we are not persuaded by this
argument.
We agree that Doane’s disclosure does not disclose a printer
after the labels are applied. However, we are not persuaded by
the unsupported conclusion that Jackson’s printer could not be
included without a total redesign of Doane. There is no evidence
of record that a printing head could not be incorporated into
Doane, merely attorney argument, which is not evidence. It is
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007