Appeal 2007-1925
Application 09/391,869
bonded, fused or glued to the first surface of the base sheet” as recited in
Appellant’s claim 1.
Appellant argues that Wyant fails to disclose a pocket nor does it teach
“continuous two-ply seams” as recited in Appellant’s claim 1 (Substitute Br. 9-10).
We find that Wyant discloses embodiments alternately using two-ply (Finding of
Fact 10) and three-ply seams (Finding of Fact 11) to form a pocket. Also, Wyant
discloses a single pocket for each base sheet (Finding of Fact 7). However, Wyant
teaches forming the pocket by folding a single sheet, rather than gluing two
separate sheets together. This results in a pocket insert with two glued, two-ply
seams separated by a folded edge, not a continuous, two-ply seam. Thus, Wyant
teaches all of the limitations set forth in Appellant’s claim 1 except “continuous
two ply seams.” We find that Dick teaches a pocket made with a continuous two-
ply seam. Dick teaches forming a pocket from two single sheets by stitching or
otherwise suitably securing three of the four edges. (Finding of Facts 15 and 16).
Thus, Dick teaches another way of making a pocket. Instead of Wyant’s two-ply
pocket made by folding a single sheet and securing the two opposite edges, Dick
teaches forming a two-ply pocket by securing three edges of two sheets.
Furthermore, Wyant and Dick together teach that a pocket can made by either
method and yield a predictable result.
The question is whether one of ordinary skill in the art starting with Wyant’s
two-ply pocket would have found it obvious at the time the invention was made to
modify Wyant's pocket insert to include a continuous two-ply seam as taught by
Dick for providing a more secure pocket. In considering the teaching of Wyant
17
Page: Previous 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013