Appeal No. 97-0608
Application 08/287,143
examiner's part to be both unreasonable and unsupported by any
factual evidence of record.
As for the examiner's further reliance on Reba in
combination with Barben in the § 103 rejection of claims 13
through 20, we share appellants' view that the examiner's
position epitomizes improper hindsight reconstruction of the
claimed subject matter. Like appellants, we find no teaching,
suggestion or incentive in the applied references for using a
Coanda effect nozzle like that of Reba in the packaging box
blank cutting mechanism of Barben and, as noted by appellants,
the examiner has pointed to none. While the trim segment
removal means (120) and Coanda nozzle (132) of Reba are used
to remove the trim strip segments (32) from the slitters
therein, no such trim strip segments or slitters are present
in Barben.
Lacking any reasonable teachings in the prior art
itself which would appear to have fairly suggested the claimed
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007