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.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007