Appeal No. 2003-1514 Page 5
Application No. 09/180,038
pivotal rotation of the slider 18, arm 18a and plate spring member 16. According to the
examiner, it would have been obvious to modify Hayamizu to include “the driven blade
and the rotary blade are always in contact with each other” and such modification would
have allowed the cutter to cut thin papers and to cut through a thick cutter work, as
taught by Komatsu (answer, pages 8 and 9).
The examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent to us, how the combined
teachings of Hayamizu and Komatsu would have suggested modification of Hayamizu
to arrive at the invention recited in claim 1. Hayamizu and Komatsu disclose two
distinct cutting devices. Hayamizu uses a single blade which is moved via pivotal
rotation of a blade holder on which it is mounted toward and away from a drag roller
with which it cooperates to cut the drawing paper. Komatsu, on the other hand, uses
two contacting rotary blades which are mounted onto a slider which translates the
blades together as a unit. First, it is not apparent to us why one of ordinary skill in the
art would have been led by the teachings of Komatsu to replace the single blade cutter
of Hayamizu with the translating double rotary blade arrangement of Komatsu.
Moreover, even if such a substitution were made, the result would not appear to include
a rotator for pivotally rotating a blade holder holding the two blades between a cutting
position and a non-cutting position as called for in claim 1.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the teachings of Hayamizu and
Komatsu are insufficient to establish that the subject matter of claim 1 as a whole would
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007