Appeal No. 2005-1224
Application No. 10/087,897
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness for the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, we will
not sustain the examiner's rejections.
Although Simhaee, like appellants, discloses a machine for
making air-filled cushions from a roll of film having two layers
sealed together, the examiner concedes that Simhaee fails to
disclose the presently claimed pair of spaced apart, horizontally
extending rollers on which the roll of film rests, as well as
means for feeding the film material in a generally downward
direction from the roll past the air injector tube and the
sealing unit. The examiner cites Skalsky for teaching a pair of
rollers for supporting a roll of film. Neither Simhaee nor
Skalsky teaches the claimed means for feeding the film in a
generally downward direction past an inflation tube and a sealing
unit. Indeed, the apparatus of Skalsky does not comprise an air
injector. Also, Figure 5 of Simhaee, cited by the examiner,
shows the film being fed in the upward direction. According to
the examiner,
[I]t would have been obvious to the skilled person in
the art to have visualized a horizontally arranged
machine with the roll of material positioned on one
side of the machine when viewing the page of the
schematic sideway[s] or a vertically arranged with the
roll of material positioned at the top of the machine
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007