Appeal No. 95-0900
Application 07/947,117
conceded by the examiner on page 7 of the answer, Matuda clearly
discloses vertical transfer movements for the label applicator.
See Matuda, column 1, line 18, lines 26-27, column 3, lines 60-
62, column 4, lines 43-47, 51, line 62-column 5, line 34.
The examiner states that Matuda, at column 4, lines 45-47,
teaches that the vertical strokes can be adjusted to match the
relative height of the object to be labeled. The examiner
concludes that it would have been obvious that, depending on the
relative height of the object to be labeled, the distance of the
vertical strokes can be zero (answer, page 7). The examiner has
presented no reasoning or factual basis for this interpretation
of Matuda that the height of the object to be labeled can be zero
and thus the vertical stroke taught by Matuda can be eliminated.
See In re Warner, 379 F.2d 1011, 1017, 154 USPQ 173, 178 (CCPA
1967)(It is improper to resort to speculation or unfounded
assumptions to supply the deficiencies in the factual basis for a
rejection).
The examiner relies on Kistner to show that for some label
application heights a vertical stroke is unnecessary (answer,
page 7). However, Kistner does not show that vertical movement
is unnecessary and fails to disclose an inclined planar surface
for label pick up. Kistner describes an adjustable hopper 11
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007