Ex Parte Aoki - Page 4

               Appeal 2007-1908                                                                             
               Application 10/442,950                                                                       

           1   position respectively to a cutting position, and moving the cutting knives                   
           2   individually from the cutting position to the origin position, as in claim 3.”               
           3          With regard to Miller, Appellant contends (id.) that Miller does not                  
           4   make up for the deficiencies of the Coburn references.  Turning to the                       
           5   Hirakawa, Linn, and Seki references, Appellant contends that these                           
           6   references move their respective elements in a manner similar to Coburn                      
           7   '495.  It is argued (Br. 9) that each of Hirakawa, Linn, and Seki move their                 
           8   heads as a group, which precludes a teaching or suggestion of “returning the                 
           9   cutting knives individually from respective positions,” and “ moving the                     
          10   cutting knives individually from said respective origin positions to                         
          11   respective positions.”  In the Reply Brief (p. 6) Appellant additionally                     
          12   contends that “there is no disclosure in either of Coburn ‘761, Hirakawa, nor                
          13   the additional references regarding whether the word ‘individually’ is used                  
          14   in regard to returning the cutting knives, moving the cutting knives                         
          15   individually from said perspective origin positions, or whether it pertains to               
          16   some other movement.  There simply is not enough disclosure for one to                       
          17   presume what is intended to be meant by the mere word ‘individually,’ as                     
          18   sparingly used in the references.”  Appellant additionally contends (Reply                   
          19   Br. 7) that “the Examiner acknowledges that the applied references really do                 
          20   not explain what they specifically mean by ‘individually.’  The obviousness                  
          21   rejection is not properly supported based on the word ‘individually’ alone.                  
          22   Claim 3 clearly includes more features than just the operation of moving an                  
          23   individual blade.”                                                                                                             
          24          The Examiner contends (Answer 3) that in Coburn '495, the cutting                     
          25   knives are moved from a cutting arrangement to an origin or park position,                   


                                                     4                                                      

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013