Appeal No. 97-3703 Page 6
Application No. 08/110,349
moved downward as the movable blade moves into [its]
cutting engagement with the stationary blade. This
movement prevents the workpiece from being crushed
during cutting. As the cutting blade moves into
[its] rest position, the support 25 likewise returns
to [its] upper limit of movement, which allows the
workpiece to be pushed along the surface of support
25 into engagement with transfer table 43, after the
cutting has taken place. It would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill to have provided Walker
with a support and alignment table as taught by
[Scott], in order to prevent damage to the workpiece
due to misalignment with the next structure in the
device [answer, pages 4 and 5].
The examiner relies on Osmera for its teaching to couple
a holding device with a movable shear for rectilinear movement
therewith and concludes that it would have been obvious, in
view of this teaching, to couple an alignment device to
Walker's movable blade for rectilinear movement in order to
provide support for the wadding during a cutting operation
without crushing and tilting the wadding (final rejection,
page 3).
The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings
of the references would have suggested to one of ordinary
skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007