Appeal No. 2005-1063
Application No. 10/126,910
determination on the patentability of claim 1 of the present
application is in error.
Appellant’s main point of argument appears to be that there is
inadequate teaching, suggestion, or motivation for the combination
of Jelling and Paulsen, because what is disclosed in Paulsen
allegedly leads away from a combination with Jelling. We do not
agree. The issue to be resolved is whether it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of
appellant’s invention to add serial numbering to the disposable
bags in each of the rolls (50, 52, 54) of Jelling so as to provide
the user of Jelling’s device with a means for ascertaining the
number of bags used and/or remaining on each roll. As noted on
pages 6 and 7 of our earlier decision, from the broad teachings
in Paulsen of providing serial numbering on the bags of the roll
therein “to designate the number of bags used and/or remaining
in said dispenser” (col. 1, lines 13-15), we find adequate
suggestion/motivation to utilize serial numbering on the bags in
Jelling for the purpose of keeping track of the bags used and/or
remaining on each roll. The fact that the number of bags on the
roll in Paulsen is most likely smaller than that in Jelling and
probably does not involve hundreds of bags is, in our opinion,
irrelevant. The advantage to be gained in Jelling from utilizing
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007