Appeal No. 96-3968
Application No. 08/117,669
suggested by the prior art applied by the examiner, we will not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 20 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view of
Jones.
We will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1, 2, 9,
22, 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Gergely in view of Hageman. With regard to these claims, we
agree with the examiner's determination (answer, p. 8) that it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
to provide Gergely with a stationary breaker blade as suggested
and taught by Hageman. Further, with regard to claims 2 and 22,
we agree with the examiner's determination (answer, pp. 8-9)
that it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in
the art that the fixed gap of Gergely would have been between
about 0.005-0.008 inches. Further, with regard to claim 24, we
agree with the examiner's determination (answer, p. 9) that it
would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art
to adapt Gergely's burster to process business forms of a paper
weight of 32 lbs. or less since one of ordinary skill in the art
would readily adapt the burster of Gergely to business forms of
varying paper weights.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007