Appeal No. 97-0615
Application 08/359,664
in support of the rejections, and to appellant's brief (Paper
No. 12, filed August 14, 1996) for appellant's arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claims,
to
the applied prior art references, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determinations
which follow.
Turning first to the examiner's rejection of claims 1
through 7, 18 and 19 under 35 U.S.C. § 103, we note that the
examiner urges (answer, page 3) that Clark shows a punching
system having all the recited limitations, except for a
workpiece holder (means for holding) that is inside a housing
for the cutting/punching process, but outside the housing for
workpiece loading. To address this difference the examiner
looks to Alfandari, taking the position (answer pages 3-4)that
Alfandari shows that it is well known to have a tray
(39) having a tool passageway (47), said tray (39)
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007