Appeal No. 98-0009
Application No. 08/538,414
However, it is our view that this combination of references
fails here, too, because of the lack of suggestion for the
artisan to combine their teachings in the manner proposed by
the examiner, for the reasons explained above with regard to
claim 1.
We therefore also will not sustain this rejection of
claims 4-6.
The Rejection On The Basis Of LaBounty
As we explained above, LaBounty fails to disclose an end
plate having a curved cutting edge which is matingly engaged
by the cutter blade that passes between the spaced parallel
plates. For this reason the teachings of LaBounty, here
considered alone, fail to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with regard to the subject matter recited in claim
1.
This rejection of claims 1-3 therefore cannot be
sustained.
We reach a different conclusion, however, with regard to
this rejection of independent claim 4. The preamble of this
claim states that it is directed to a “declipper assembly for
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007