Ex parte CAMPO et al. - Page 7

                Appeal No. 96-3555                                                                                                            
                Application No. 08/297,021                                                                                                    

                view, Sastri's disclosure  of moving a blade stack through a2                                                                                   
                demagnetizing means after the blade stack is cleaned by immersion                                                             
                in trichloroethylene, subjected to ultrasonic cleaning, rinsed in                                                             
                a mixture of acetone and methanol and cleaned in warm air  would                               3                              
                not have provided any suggestion, absent the appellants'                                                                      
                teachings, to demagnetize the blade stack before the blade stack                                                              
                is cleaned.  Demagnetizing the blade stack before the blade stack                                                             
                is cleaned insures that the blades are not attracted to one                                                                   
                another, and therefore insures that the riffling of the blades                                                                
                will take place during the cleaning operation.                               4                                                

                         In light of the foregoing, we will not sustain the standing                                                          
                 103 rejection of independent claim 52 and dependent claims 18                                                               
                through 20, 23, 26, 27, 29, 30 and 53.                                                                                        

                         We now turn to the examiner's rejection of independent claim                                                         
                51.  After considering the collective teachings of Grefe, Weihe                                                               
                and Clague, we agree with the examiner that the claimed invention                                                             

                         2The examiner relied exclusively on Sastri to suggest the                                                            
                recited step of moving the blade stack through a demagnetizing                                                                
                means (answer, pp. 5 and 7).                                                                                                  
                         3See column 3, lines 30-36, of Sastri.                                                                               
                         4See page 9, lines 8-12, of the specification.                                                                       

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

Last modified: November 3, 2007