Appeal No. 97-3752 Page 11
Application No. 08/293,322
Once again, it is our view that the examiner has not set
forth a sufficient factual basis to establish obviousness with
respect to claims 3 and 4. First, all words in a claim must
be considered in judging the patentability of that claim
against the prior art. See In re Wilson, 424 F.2d 1382, 1385,
165 USPQ 494, 496 (CCPA 1970). Thus, the limitation that the
second knife means is arranged to be "driven" must be given
patentable consideration. Second, the examiner's
determination that this limitation (i.e., the second knife
means is arranged to be "driven") was obvious since a driven
skinner blade is known is without factual basis as to why one
skilled in the art would have modified Townsend's fattening
blade 21 to be driven. If anything, a teaching of a driven
skinner blade would have suggested driving Townsend's skinning
blade 20, not the fatting blade 21. Thus, it appears to us
that the examiner has resorted to speculation, unfounded
assumption and hindsight reconstruction to supply deficiencies
in the factual basis for the rejection.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007