Appeal No. 2006-0828
Application No. 10/252,175
Appellants acknowledge in their reply brief that the
alternative embodiment depicted in figure 8 of Allen utilizes a
back film sheet, but appellants emphasize that such film is not
produced in situ, or in line, but rather is dispensed from a
roll. However, as conceded by appellants, “Allen was therefore
aware of the ability to produce such films in situ using a
station similar to bottom cover station 202 (Fig. 1)” (page 2 of
reply brief, last paragraph). While appellants conclude that
“one can only surmise that Allen, in weighing the pros and cons
of doing so, believed that no overall advantage would be
obtained” from forming the bottom film in situ, we are persuaded
that one of ordinary skill in the art would have readily
understood that the back sheet film of Allen’s alternative
embodiment could be provided by either in situ formation or a
separate dispensing roll. We find that the disclosure of Allen’s
first embodiment, along with the Kobylivker disclosure, provide
ample evidence that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
found it obvious to form appellants’ first and second primary
components in situ.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007