Appeal No. 2005-2620 Παγε 3
Application No. 09/852,712
rejections, and to the brief (filed September 30, 2004) and reply brief (filed January 18,
2005) for the appellants' arguments thereagainst.
Opinion
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence
of our review, we make the determinations which follow.
Both of the rejections in this case are made pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 103. We
initially note that the test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the
references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young,
927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981). Moreover, in evaluating such references
it is proper to take into account not only the specific teachings of the references but
also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom. In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968).
In rejecting claims 16 to 22 and 30 to 31, the examiner relies on the APA as
depicted in Figures 1 and 2 and discussed on page 4 of appellants' specification. The
examiner, recognizing that the APA does not describe a tissue packet having a square
rear face and a square front face or the particular manner in which the tissues are
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007