Appeal No. 1996-0208
Application 08/098,153
1. the obvious reason of “duplication of function,
increase the productivity of the apparatus, . . .”(answer,
page 4);
2. the obvious advantage of increased productivity
(answer, page 4);
3. the obvious cost savings provided by retrofitting an
existing press forming apparatus versus building a new machine
(answer, pages 4-5); and
4. the obvious reason to conserve space (answer, page
5).
The examiner’s first and second justifications are, in
effect, one and the same, i.e., that the use of a multi-die
press will increase productivity. However, the examiner’s
contention does not take into account that Dowd’s apparatus
and appellant’s retrofitted apparatus are both directed to
similar paper forming devices operating at the same speed
(appeal brief, page 6; Dowd at col. 3, lines 1-22;
specification at page 7) and at the same productivity rate.
Dowd, with his single die press, can shape from one to three
or more paper products in one cycle (Dowd at col 4, lines 19-
22). Dowd’s high productivity results from the fact that he
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007