Appeal No. 2006-1481
Application No. 09/846,714
the primary reference teach the element for which the
secondary reference is relied upon. Thus, it is not
necessary that Campbell teach heat seals in order to
provide motivation for combining Campbell with Hubbard.
Such a teaching in Campbell would only be required in order
to maintain an anticipatory type rejection.
Appellant has not provided sufficient evidence to
overcome examiner’s reasonable determination of
obviousness. The appellant’s arguments are not persuasive
because the desire for a leak-proof seam provides
sufficient motivation for use of heat sealing as the means
for binding the peripheral edge of the pouches of Campbell.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated the
integral construction provided by the known heat sealing
method as taught by Hubbard.
Appellant’s argument that Campbell does not teach
substantially S-shaped edges to the degree claimed is not
convincing. Inspection of Figure 2 of Campbell reveals a
pouch (1) comprising first and second lateral edges (2)
each comprising a concave surface and a convex surface such
that each edge is substantially S-shaped.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007