Appeal No. 96-1687
Application No. 08/192,067
suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the
knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art
and not from the appellant's disclosure. See, for example,
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5
USPQ2d 1434, 1052 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
We shall look first to the rejection of independent claim 1.
According to the examiner, Kakko-Chiloff discloses an apparatus
that meets all of the limitations of this claim except for the
inwardly tapered recesses in each end of the die cylinders and
the corresponding tapered sidewalls in the arbor assemblies which
support the die cylinders at each end, and the requirement that
each die cylinder and its associated arbor assemblies be
separately removable from the guide ways of the die stand. For
the tapered recess limitation the examiner looks to EP ‘559, and
for the separate removability to Bell.
Kakko-Chiloff is directed to a rotary cutting apparatus
having a pair of cooperating die cylinders, each comprising a
central roller portion flanked by a pair of axially aligned and
extending stub shafts, which are received in the supporting
bearings. Interestingly, this is precisely the prior art
construction over which the appellant believes his invention to
be an improvement (specification, page 1). The objective in
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007