Appeal No. 97-3990
Application 08/531,069
Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1051, 5
USPQ2d 1434, 1438 (Fed. Cir. 1988) and Interconnect Planning
Corp. v. Feil, 774 F.2d 1132, 1143, 227 USPQ 543, 550-51 (Fed.
Cir. 1985). Here, we find no such suggestion.
The device of Curtis is directed to a completely
disparate type of device from that of any of the Parker
references. That is, Curtis discloses an apparatus for
forming spaced slits in a metal sheet (see Fig. 7) that is
subsequently intended to be expanded into a mesh-like sheet
(see Fig. 8) and is in no way concerned with manufacturing
packing materials. On the other hand, each of the Parker
references is directed to an apparatus for forming resilient
bulk packaging material from sheets such
as paper or cardboard. To this end, the sheets are fed to a
plurality of cutters which slit the sheets into narrow strips
that are then fed into a device (which the examiner considers
to be a "wave forming guide") where the narrow strips are
folded, crimped and compressed into a generally zig-zag
configuration. Absent the appellant's own teachings, we are
at a complete loss to understand why one of ordinary skill in
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007