Appeal No. 1997-0595 Page 14
Application No. 08/154,911
cutting assembly, it is our opinion that the teachings of
D'Angelo would not have suggested replacing Johnson's guide
rod 148 with a conveyor that pulls the cut product away from
the cutting assembly. Once again it is our view that the only
suggestion for modifying Johnson in the manner proposed by the
examiner to meet the above-noted limitations stems from
hindsight knowledge derived from the appellant's own
disclosure. It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner's
rejection of claims 1, 2 and 8.
Claim 10 includes the limitation that the "pad-
transferring assembly" engages "an upper surface of the cut
pad." In our view, this limitation clearly is not taught by
Johnson or suggested from the combined teachings of Johnson
and D'Angelo. In that regard, while D'Angelo does teach a
conveyor that engages an upper surface of the cut product, it
is our opinion that the teachings of D'Angelo would not have
suggested replacing Johnson's guide rod 148 with a conveyor
that engages an upper surface of the cut product. Thus, it is
our view that the only suggestion for modifying Johnson in the
manner proposed by the examiner to meet the above-noted
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007