Appeal No. 1996-0208
Application 08/098,153
can feed two or more vertically stacked blanks into his single
die to make multiple products (specification, page 4).
Appellant’s retrofitted multiple die press performs the same
operation as Dowd’s, except that it shapes each paper blank
separately (specification at page 7). Thus, appellant’s
apparatus provides no increase in productivity over the device
of Dowd. As emphasized above, appellant’s invention is
directed, inter alia, to the goal of producing a product of
enhanced quality which cannot be achieved by the Dowd
apparatus.
With respect to the examiner’s third reason to justify
the combination of reference teachings, appellant argues, and
we agree, that the examiner has not factually demonstrated how
any cost savings are attained by retrofitiing an existing
apparatus, such as Dowd’s, in the manner claimed herein. See
the brief at pages 8-9. The examiner’s argument is conclusory
and devoid of any evidentiary support.
With regard to the fourth reason, we note that neither
Dowd nor Axer expressly indicate that the conservation of
space is a factor of significance with respect to the design
of the prior art devices disclosed. We do not consider this
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007