Appeal No. 2004-0170
Application No. 09/288,450
As pointed out by the appellants, independent claims 1, 5,
11 and 15 recite a shear comprising, in essence,
(a) a cutting zone spaced vertically (or above) the
plane of product travel;
(b) [a]n upstream switch operable in concert with one
of the blade rotors to deflect the product vertically
from the plane of product travel into the cutting zone
where it is cut by the leader and follower blades; and
(c) leader and follower blades that are constructed and
arranged to direct the front end of the trailing
segment of the sheared product back to the plane of
product travel [main brief, page 5].
The examiner’s conclusions of obviousness rest in part on
findings (see pages 8 and 9 in the answer) that the foregoing
limitations in claims 1, 5, 11 and 15 are met by both of the
Poloni references. These findings, however, are completely
lacking in factual support. Neither reference contains any
teaching or suggestion that switch 16, which lies and moves in
the plane of product movement, is vertically spaced from the
cutting zone defined by blades 13. Quite to the contrary, Poloni
‘033 explicitly teaches that switch 16 is positioned
substantially on the same axis as the axis of the rolled stock
being fed and that this axis coincides with the shearing axis at
the moment of shearing (column 6, lines 24 through 27), and
Poloni ‘291 explicitly teaches that switch 16 lies in a plane
containing the shearing axis 15 (see column 4, lines 16 through
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007