Appeal 2006-0153
Application 10/082,635
the references sought to be combined, but may be found in any number of
sources, including common knowledge, the prior art as a whole, or the
nature of the problem itself.”); In re Bozek, 416 F.2d 1385, 1390, 163 USPQ
545, 549 (CCPA 1969)(“Having established that this knowledge was in the
art, the examiner could then properly rely, as put forth by the solicitor, on a
conclusion of obviousness ‘from common knowledge and common sense of
the person of ordinary skill in the art without any specific hint or suggestion
in a particular reference.’”).
Here, the Appellants have not challenged the Examiner’s
determination that the prior art references would have suggested the claimed
bubble wrap making process, except for employing recycled polyester as an
oxygen barrier(Br. 6). As argued by the Appellants, Ottaviano employs
nylon material, rather than recycled polyester, as an oxygen barrier (Br.
6-12).
Therefore, the dispositive question is whether one of ordinary skill in
the art would have been led to employ recycled polyester, in lieu of nylon
material, as an oxygen barrier in the bubble wrap making process suggested
by the combined disclosures of Ottaviano and either Fox or Kawakami
within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 103(a). On this record, we answer this
question in the affirmative.
As correctly found by the Examiner (Answer, 8):
[I]t was known as evidenced by Lewicki et al to provide an
oxygen barrier in the manufacture of a bubble wrap and/or
dunnage from polyester materials as well as nylon materials
(i.e. that polyester would have been an art recognized
alternative material for nylon which achieved the same function
as the nylon barrier of Ottaviano '865). The reference to
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013