Appeal No. 2004-1240
Application No. 09/742,691
secured to carton 10).
Budny also teaches that cutting means 44 is most
preferably a metal or plastic cutter bar “for
controllable tearing off desired lengths of the roll
material”. See column 3, lines 12-16. The roll
material can be polymeric film, wax paper, metal foil,
and the like. See Abstract. Hence, Budny provides
sufficient motivation to substitute the serrated
cutting edge of the AAPA for an integrated metal
cutting blade for controllable tearing off of foil.
In this way, the art recognized problem associated
with the prior art (difficulties in achieving
desirable tearing/cutting of foil, as, e.g., discussed
in the Tanas Declaration) is alleviated. We note that
obviousness can be established by combining or
modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce
the claimed invention where there is some teaching,
suggesting, or motivation to do so found either in the
reference or in the knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Fine, 837 F.2d
1071, 1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988).
Here, Budny provides the motivation to do so. Hence,
we determine that that combination of applied prior
art supports a prima facie case of obviousness. We
therefore affirm the obviousness rejection of claim 1.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007