Appeal No. 1999-2099
Application No. 08/475,627
skill the creation of a network from the multiplicity of
cushioning conversion machines, each with its own controller,
disclosed by the AAPA. We reach this conclusion because the
disclosure of each of the secondary references is specific to
a network of a particular type of machine (Groenteman:
copiers; Kawamura: lathe heads; Dietrich: machines making a
"large, indivisible, or highly customized product" (col. 6,
lines 10 and 11), e.g., computers; Lobiondo: printers), rather
than being of such a nature as to suggest the provision of a
centrally controlled network for a plurality of manufacturing
machines, generically. Any suggestion of providing such a
network for a plurality of cushioning conversion machines
would thus appear to be derived not from the prior art, but
from improper hindsight based on appellants' own disclosure.
Rejection (2) therefore will not be sustained.
Rejection (3)
The additional references applied in rejection (3) do not
supply the deficiencies noted with regard to rejection (2),
and rejection (3) likewise will not be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner's decision to reject claims 1 to 22 is
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007