Appeal No. 2003-0488
Application No. 09/086,286
second transport wheel are configured to assemble a bottom to the sleeve. In addition, the transport
wheel and the processing stations are
operatively arranged on one side of a vertically disposed central wall of a joint
machine frame, and driving elements for the transport wheels are arranged on an
exposed side of the vertically disposed central wall opposite from the one side on
which the transports wheels and processing stations are disposed for easy
accessibility.
In rejecting this claim as being unpatentable over Konzal in view of Stahlecker, the
examiner has determined that Konzal does not disclose the first transport wheel 10 and the second
transport wheel 23 mounted on a vertical support wall with the transport wheels each being mounted
on a horizontally extending axis. The examiner takes the position, however, that it would have been
obvious to arrange the transport wheels of Konzal “in a vertical orientation as taught by Stahlecker
as a design choice arrangement” (answer, page 4). Implicit in the above, is that the machine of
Konzal modified in the manner proposed by the examiner would result in an apparatus that
corresponds in all respects to the subject matter of claim 1. For the reasons that follow, we cannot
accept these positions.
First, we do not agree with the examiner that it would not have been obvious to arrange the
transport wheels of Konzal “in a vertical orientation” (i.e., with the axes of the transports wheels
extending in a horizontal direction) in view of Stahlecker. As noted by appellants on page 14 of the
brief, the transport wheel 30 of Figure 8 of Stahlecker and the transport wheel 50 of Figure 9 of
Stahlecker are not mounted to a common machine frame and are not even necessarily arranged
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007