Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
DISSENTING OPINION TEXT
Dissent by:
TIMM, Administrative Patent Judge.
I respectfully dissent from the majority's disposition of this
case. The majority has focused on one limitation found in all of
the claims on appeal, i.e., the limitation directed to the
adjustable transport conveyor defined by two counter rotating
conveyor belts extending along the entire transport path. They
conclude that the examiner has not established a prima facie case
of obviousness because Winn, Lam, Reichert, and Baker ‘766 as a
whole do not teach or suggest employing the claimed conveyor in the
claimed stamping apparatus and method. I, on the other hand,
conclude that there is evidentiary support for the examiner’s
conclusion that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to modify the stamping apparatus and method of Winn with
another known conveying system such as those described in Lam,
Reichert, and Baker ‘766.
My review of the rejections follows.2
2
2 Appellant’s statement with regard to the grouping of the
claims (Brief, p. 5)is not in conformance with the requirements
of 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7). 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7) indicates that the
(continued...)
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007