Appeal No. 98-0009
Application No. 08/538,414
In re Pearson, 494 F.2d 1399, 181 USPQ 641 (CCPA 1974).
It is important to focus upon the fact that, unlike claim
1, claim 4 does not require the cutting edge to be on the
spacer which supports the plates in parallel spaced relation.
Claim 4 merely recites “a cutter blade pivotally mounted in
the space between the blades,” and such an arrangement is
taught by LaBounty. Cutter blades 122 and 123 are carried by
a pivotal upper plate 121 and, as can be seen in Figures 7-9,
the cutting edges lie in the space between the lower plates.
It therefore is our opinion that LaBounty establishes a
prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the subject
matter of claim 4, and we will sustain this rejection. In
view of the appellant’s decision to group claims 5 and 6 with
claim 4 (Brief, page 4), this rejection of those two claims
also is sustained.
We have, of course, carefully considered all of the
appellant’s arguments, as they may apply to the rejection
which we have sustained. However, we are not convinced that,
as to this rejection, the examiner’s decision was in error.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007