Appeal No. 97-2720 Page 16
Application No. 08/354,387
teaches a sheet feeder and thus falls into the former category
of the Wood test. Thus, we conclude that Scott is analogous
art.
Second, the appellants argue that the feeding roller does
not retract and that the limitations of claim 5 are not taught
or suggested by the applied prior art. We do not agree. From
the teachings of Scott, an artisan would have understood that
to refill the cabinet with a new package of paper sheets that
one would pivot front frame B about hinge C to gain access to
the tongue G to install the new package of paper sheets.
Thus, in our view, the feeding roller J of Scott does retract
from the stack of sheets when the frame B is pivoted about
hinge C to gain access to the tongue G to install a new
package of paper sheets. Accordingly, it is our opinion that
Scott does supply sufficient suggestion and motivation for one
of ordinary skill in the art to modify DuBois in the manner
set forth above.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claim 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 is affirmed.
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007