Appeal No. 2006-3174
Application No. 10/488,501 6
teaching whereby the appellant’s combination would have been
obvious. In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 986, 18 USPQ2d 1885, 1888
(Fed. Cir. 1991) (citations omitted). That is, something in the
prior art as a whole must suggest the desirability, and thus the
obviousness, of making the combination. See In re Beattie, 974
F.2d 1309, 1312, 24 USPQ2d 1040, 1042 (Fed. Cir. 1992);
Lindemann Maschinenfabrik GmbH v. American Hoist and Derrick
Co., 730 F.2d 1452, 1462, 221 USPQ 481, 488 (Fed. Cir. 1984).
In our view, there is no motivation to modify the drum
arrangement disclosed in Hiramoto so as to be a linear
arrangement as disclosed in Serra. We do not find the
motivation asserted by the examiner in the references cited. We
simply find no reason in the prior art to modify the circuit
arrangement of Hiramoto so as to be arranged in a linear
fashion. In addition, we find no motivation in the prior art to
modify the Hiramoto device so as to be able to accommodate
various sizes of bags. In any case, as the belts C1 and C2
engage the sides of the objects being transported thereby, it is
not clear how the adjustability of belt C1 promotes the
transportation of plastic bags of various sizes. As each of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007