Appeal No. 2006-1795 4
Application No. 10/269,057
The appellants contend that there is no suggestion or teaching in the references
themselves to replace the land areas 38, 40 of Kreager with the grooves 44 and the flat
surface 42 of Voller. (Appellants’ Brief, page 8). The appellants further argue,
The lands and valley construction of Kreager creates an
unsealed space between two narrow adjacent seals. Breaking
the two separate narrow seals is obviously and intentionally
easier than breaking a continuous seal over the same area.
According to Voller, the continuous seal created by the single
flat pressing area is “as strong or stronger than the material
itself.” See Voller at column 1, lines 31-33. In Kreager,
allowing easy access to the package contents (potato chips, corn
chips, cookies, etc.) for end users is an advantage. By contrast,
the strong seal of Voller would be a distinct disadvantage in the
Kreager packaging.
(Appellants’ Brief, page 8).
With regard to the appellants’ argument regarding lack of motivation to combine
Kreager and Voller, we considered the requirement, as recently re-stated in In re Kahn,
441 F.3d 977, 78 USPQ2d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2006), for a showing of a “teaching,
suggestion, or motivation” to modify or combine the prior art teaching. As to this test, the
court explained,
The ‘motivation-suggestion-teaching’ test asks not merely what
the references disclose, but whether a person of ordinary skill in
the art, possessed with the understandings and knowledge
reflected in the prior art, and motivated by the general problem
facing the inventor, would have been led to make the
combination recited in the claims…. From this it may be
determined whether the overall disclosures, teachings, and
suggestions of the prior art, and the level of skill in the art – i.e.,
the understandings and knowledge of persons having ordinary
skill in the art at the time of the invention – support the legal
conclusion of obviousness.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007