Appeal No. 2002-1803
Application 09/288,775
obvious to one skilled in the art to substitute a sealing and
perforating means such as shown by Hoover for the cutting means
of Sperry to form a strip of [a] plurality of connected and
separable cushions” (answer, page 3). There is nothing in the
combined teachings of Sperry and Hoover, however, which would
have suggested this proposed combination. The heat sealing and
severing device 35 disclosed by Sperry functions in accordance
with the intended use of the overall apparatus in a packaging
production line. The proposed modification in view of Hoover to
allow the formation of strips of connected and separable cushions
seemingly would render the Sperry apparatus unsuitable for this
intended use. In this light, it is evident that the only
suggestion to combine Sperry and Hoover in the manner proposed by
the examiner stems from hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived
from the appellants’ disclosure.
Accordingly, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of independent claims 1, 8, 16 and 21, and
dependent claims 2 through 7, 9 through 15, 17 through 20 and 22
through 25, as being unpatentable over Sperry in view of Hoover.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007