Appeal No. 1999-2132 Page 4
Application No. 08/672,856
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
413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 13, 20 and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Tekavec in view of Mistyurik, we note that
claim 1 calls for a system for transferring a pad from a
cushioning conversion machine comprising upper and lower
series of drive elements, each series arranged in a generally
arcuate path and spaced to accommodate a pad, and a motor for
powering the rotation of the drive elements.
Claim 9 sets forth a cushioning conversion machine
located below a work table comprising a stock supply assembly,
a conversion assembly, and a cushioning product transferring
system including an upper and lower series of roller defining
a path therebetween leading from the machine exit portion to a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007