Appeal No. 95-3922
Application No. 08/123,587
appellant's apparatus are mounted on journal axes which are in
turn mounted with a spacing from the guide rollers and outside
the space between the guide rollers. Further according to the
specification, this type of mounting of the press-on heads
with the specific position and arrangement of the journal axes
of the heads "makes it possible to altogether avoid the
slides for the mounting of the guide rollers and to also2
avoid a movement stroke in combination with a tilting motion"
of the press-on heads. Accordingly, the specific position and
arrangement of the claimed journals and guide rollers solve a
known problem in the art. Compare In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,
555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975) wherein the court indicated
that the rationale of "obvious matter of design choice"
applies when a modification is made which "solves no stated
problem". Further, as appellant has argued in the brief at
page 24, this modification of Heitmann's apparatus would
defeat Heitmann's goal of compactness of apparatus elements.
Accordingly, we do not agree that the examiner has a valid
basis for asserting that it would have been an obvious matter
2Appellant is apparently referring to an element of
Bianchetto's apparatus. See the specification at page 2.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007