Appeal No. 1999-0931
Application 08/772,861
It is readily apparent to this panel of the board that
appellant and the aforementioned patentees share a common
objective, i.e., obtaining particularly sized sheets of
sandpaper from larger sheets. However, it is also quite clear
to us that appellant’s claimed structure to obtain the
objective differs from the respective teachings of the
applied prior art. Simply stated, we have determined that
neither the two component guide of Freeman nor the one piece
stencil of Fischer, each considered alone and in combination
with one another, teach or would have suggested the apparatus
and method now claimed by appellant. When what appellant
teaches in the present application is set aside, and the
reference teachings alone are collectively considered, it is
at once apparent that only reliance upon appellant’s own
teaching and impermissible hindsight would enable
one to achieve the now claimed invention. For these reasons,
we are constrained to reverse the examiner’s rejection.
NEW GROUND OF REJECTION
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007