Appeal No. 2006-1779
Application No. 10/249,810
separate attachment to the front and back panels 1a, 1b of Takashi and that Healy’s
slide fastener requires that it be sealed to one of the front or rear panels before the
other of the front or rear panels can be attached. This argument is not well taken.
We observe that all of the features of the secondary reference need not be bodily
incorporated into the primary reference (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208
USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981)) and that the artisan is not compelled to blindly
follow the teaching of one prior art reference over the other without the exercise of
independent judgment (Lear Siegler, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 733 F.2d 881, 889,
221 USPQ 1025, 1032 (Fed. Cir. 1984)). Healy evidences that it was well known
in the art at the time of appellants’ invention to utilize sliders to facilitate opening
and closing of reclosable fasteners of the type disclosed by Takashi and, thus,
would have provided suggestion to the skilled artisan to provide such a slider on
the fastener 3 of Takashi to facilitate opening and closing the male and female
profiles 3a, 3b. The examiner does not propose, nor is it necessary to the
combination, that the slider 32 of Healy actually be removed from Healy’s bag and
moved to that of Takashi.
Appellants also argue that the measures of sealing, prior to insertion of the
closure device, the front and rear panels and the gussets with the exception of an
area near the upper edge that allows insertion of the closure device and of
subsequently sealing the gussets by a closure seam portion to the front or back wall
in the previously not yet connected area near the upper edge is not disclosed by
Takashi (brief, sentence bridging pp. 10-11). We note, in this regard, that claim 1
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007