Appeal No. 2006-0836
Application No. 10/154,221
As I understand Appellant’s position, his main focus is on
the fact that his reclosable packages have two side seals rather
than the one seal disclosed in Ausnit resulting from the type of
equipment used to make Ausnit’s package. According to
Appellant, because of the difference in manufacturing equipment,
the Ausnit reference would require “drastic alteration” to
arrive at the claimed invention.
The Examiner responds to this argument as follows:
[T]he test for obviousness is not whether the
features of a secondary reference may be bodily
incorporated into the structure of the primary
reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must
be expressly suggested in any one or all of the
references. Rather, the test is what the combined
teachings of the references would have suggested to
those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re
Keller, 642 F.2d 413, [425,] 208 USPQ 871,[881]
(CCPA 1981). [Answer at 5.]
I agree with the Examiner with respect to this issue.
Interchangeability of the methods of manufacture is not
required, particularly given that the claims are not directed to
a method. “Claims may be obvious in view of a combination of
references, even if the features of one reference cannot be
substituted physically into the structure of the other
reference.” Orthopedic Equipment Co. v. United States, 702 F.2d
1005, 1013, 217 USPQ 193, 200 (Fed. Cir. 1983). “What matters
-10-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007