Ex parte STOVIN - Page 6




                   Appeal No. 2000-1202                                                                                               Page 6                        
                   Application No. 08/982616                                                                                                                        


                                                       The Rejection Under 35 U.S.C. § 103                                                                          
                                                                                                                      4                                             
                            Independent claims 5, 8 and 9 stand rejected as being obvious  in view of the                                                           
                   combined teachings of Fluent and Doman, the latter being cited for its disclosure of using                                                       
                   arm means for folding boxes.  Claims 5 and 8 require that the box folding section be                                                             
                   “adjacent” the panel receiving section, and claim 9 that it be “sidewardly adjacent” thereto.                                                    
                   All three of these claims also recite that the box folding section includes means acting                                                         
                   upon box blanks.  For the reasons explained above, Fluent actually teaches away from                                                             
                   such arrangements.   Doman is concerned with closing the top flaps of a corrugated                                                               
                   container that has previously been erected and filled with goods, and which has arrived at                                                       
                   the machine from “a previous operating station” (column 3, lines 35 and 36).   While                                                             
                   Doman does teach folding the flaps of the box into the closed position by means of arms, it                                                      
                   certainly does not provide teachings that would cure the deficiencies  in Fluent that are                                                        
                   discussed above.  Moreover, from our perspective, no other evidence is before us which                                                           

                            4The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would                                                         
                   have suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art.  See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d                                                    
                   413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).  In establishing a prima facie case of                                                                  
                   obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to provide a reason why one of ordinary                                                           
                   skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or to combine reference                                                     
                   teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.  See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972, 973                                                             
                   (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985).  To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some                                                          
                   teaching, suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge                                                              
                   generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure.                                                 
                   See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d                                                            
                   1434, 1052 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).                                                                                       








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007