Appeal No. 2004-0737
Application No. 10/141,443
and the respective viewpoints of appellants and the examiner.
As a consequence of our review, we make the determinations which
follow.
We cannot sustain the obviousness rejection of appellants’
claims based upon the prior art relied upon by the examiner.
Our reasoning appears below.
Independent claim 1, the sole independent claim before us,
reads as follows:
A pad production and packaging system comprising:
at least one pad producing machine for producing a
dunnage3 pad and supplying the dunnage pad to a pad
insertion zone disposed above a pad support, the pad
support having an opening over which the pad is
supplied; and
2(...continued)
would have fairly taught one of ordinary skill in the art. See
In re Boe, 355 F.2d 961, 965, 148 USPQ 507, 510 (CCPA 1966).
Additionally, this panel of the board has taken into account
not only the specific teachings, but also the inferences which
one skilled in the art would reasonably have been expected to
draw from the disclosure. See In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826,
159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
3 The word “dunnage” is commonly known to refer to padding
in a shipping container to protect contents against breakage.
Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, G. & C. Merriam Company,
Springfield, Massachusetts, 1979.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007