Ex Parte Bailey et al - Page 4



             Appeal No. 2004-0065                                                            Page 4               
             Application No. 09/642,585                                                                           
                                 Therefore, it would have been obvious to one with                                
                          ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to                         
                          have modified Jeffrey’s apparatus for use in processing                                 
                          packaging blanks by having a second conveyor arranged to                                
                          receive the blanks from the first conveyor and convey them                              
                          at a second velocity which is greater than the first velocity                           
                          and at a second even pitch which is different that the first                            
                          even pitch, as suggested by Focke, in order to ensure that                              
                          the blanks and/or packs have precisely defined spacing                                  
                          between them in the region of a removal conveyor.                                       

                    For the reasons aptly set forth by appellants in their brief and reply brief, we will         
             not sustain the examiner’s above-noted rejection of claims 1 through 11, 24 and 25                   
             under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Jeffrey in view of Focke.  Like                  
             appellants, we are of the view that it would be antithetical to the teachings in Jeffrey to          
             make the modification therein urged by the examiner.  In that regard, it is clear to us that         
             the method and apparatus for producing a gusseted container in Jeffrey expressly                     
             teaches that the respective drive/feed belts (7, 8) in each of the folder/gluer modules (2,          
             3, 4) therein are driven “at a preselected common belt speed” (col. 7, line 56) so as to             
             facilitate advancement of the respective blanks (5) sequentially from the prefold module             
             (2) into the fold module (3) and subsequently into the final fold module (4).  Simply                
             stated, absent hindsight derived from appellants’ own disclosure and claims, there is no             
             teaching or suggestion in the container or pack conveying arrangement seen in Focke                  
             which would have made it obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of                  
             appellants’ invention to modify the apparatus and method of Jeffrey so as to result in               
             appellants’ presently claimed subject matter.  As our court of review indicated in In re             
             Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992), it is                            
             impermissible to use the claimed invention as an instruction manual or "template" in                 





Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007