Appeal No. 2002-2230
Application 09/295,547
Reuteler’s teaching of the flexibility benefit afforded by
the computer-based control processor for automatically
controlling the operation of the carton feed opening wheel
assembly would have provided the artisan with ample motivation or
suggestion to adapt a similar system to automatically control the
operation of Genoud’s rear flap folding apparatus, and more
particularly to control the motor 47 for rotating the drive shaft
and hook members, in the manner set forth in claim 1.
Hence, the combined teachings of Genoud and Reuteler warrant
a conclusion that the differences between the subject matter
recited in claim 1 and the prior art are such that the subject
matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the
invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Therefore, we shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and claims 2 through 10, 12 through 21 and
32 which stand or fall therewith, as being unpatentable over
Genoud in view of Reuteler. Because our reasoning differs from
that employed by the examiner, however, we designate the
sustained rejection as a new ground of rejection under 37 CFR
§ 1.196(b) to afford the appellants a fair opportunity to react
thereto.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007