Appeal No. 1997-0595 Page 19
Application No. 08/154,911
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 1 to 6, 10 and 12-17 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Ottaviano '776 in view of
Engel is affirmed.
Claims 7 and 8
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 7 and 8 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Ottaviano '776 in
view of Johnson and Engel.
Claims 7 and 8 add to their respective parent claim the
limitation that the "pad-transferring assembly" further
comprises "a guide unit." Each of claims 7 and 8 sets forth
details of the guide unit. In this rejection (answer, p. 5),
the examiner relies upon Johnson's receptacle 150 as being
suggestive of the claimed guide unit. We do not agree. In
our view, the only suggestion for modifying Ottaviano '776 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 the decision of
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007