Appeal No. 96-4007
Application No. 08/294,769
F.2d 1013, 1016, 173 USPQ 560, 562 (CCPA 1972). Furthermore, the
conclusion that the claimed subject matter is prima facie
obvious must be supported by evidence, as shown by some objective
teaching in the prior art or by knowledge generally available to
one of ordinary skill in the art that would have led that
individual to combine the relevant teachings of the references to
arrive at the claimed invention. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071,
1074, 5 USPQ2d 1596, 1598 (Fed. Cir. 1988). Rejections based on
§ 103 must rest on a factual basis with these facts being
interpreted without hindsight reconstruction of the invention
from the prior art. See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154
USPQ 173, 177 (CCPA 1967), cert. denied, 389 U.S. 1057 (1968).
With this as background, we analyze the prior art applied by
the examiner in the rejection of the claims on appeal.
Beidler discloses an apparatus for conveying film from
conveyor belts 63 and 64 to a submerging unit. The conveying
apparatus includes a plurality of chains 41, a plurality of
upstream sprockets wheels 29, 30 and 31, a plurality of
downstream sprockets wheels 40, 40 and 40 and a plurality ofa b
grippers to positively hold the film while it is being conveyed.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007