Appeal No. 1998-1868
Application 08/514,377
movement component that is in the feed direction. Claim 6
recites an apparatus comprising, inter alia, at least one
cutting device having “two superposed knives having oppositely
disposed cutting edges” and drive means for moving each of the
knives in cutting engagement with the other knife in the same
manner as is set forth in claim 1. 3
The appellant’s argument that Evans does not meet these
claim limitations (see, for example, page 2 in the reply
brief) is persuasive. In this regard, the examiner’s
determination that Evans’ rotary shear 16 and/or rotary knife
cut-off machine 20 constitute superposed knives, having
oppositely disposed (i.e., facing) cutting edges, which move
in the manner recited (see page 2 in the answer) rests on an
unreasonably broad interpretation of the limitations in
question as they would be viewed by a person of ordinary skill
3Based on the underlying disclosure (see specification
pages 2, 5 and 13), we understand the recitations that the
cutting edges of the superposed knives are oppositely disposed
to mean that these cutting edges face one another. Indeed,
claims 1 and 6 as originally presented expressly recited that
each cutting edge faced the other cutting edge, but these
recitations were replaced with the present corresponding
recitations (see Paper No. 8) to overcome a dubious 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, second paragraph, rejection.
-6-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007