Appeal No. 97-3703 Page 5
Application No. 08/110,349
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Rejection 1
The examiner contends that Walker discloses the invention
as claimed except for the automatic alignment device (final
rejection, page 3) and the appellants do not challenge this
contention. The examiner argues that
Scott teaches the use of such device (comprising an
alignment member 25 and interconnecting members 37,
38, 29) for the purpose of supporting a work piece
during a cutting operation without crushing the work
piece. In view of Scott, it would have been obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art to provide
Walker's device with an automatic alignment device
in order to provide proper support of a work piece
without crushing the work piece during a cutting
operation [final rejection, page 3].
In the alternative, the examiner argues that it would
have been obvious to provide the Walker device with a support
and alignment table as suggested by Scott for the reasons
discussed above and, further:
[Scott] teaches in figure 2, and column 4, line 75
through column 5, line 3, support 25, which serves
as a guide to allow the cut workpiece to be aligned
and positioned on transfer table 43, which stacks
the workpiece on second conveyor 15. Support 25 is
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007