Appeal No. 1997-2986
Application No. 08/260,784
3. The examiner does not state whether Levine's cutting
system is being used to cut pieces from a plurality of sheets
of stock or from a roll of coil stock. Because this choice
appears to have no effect on the merits of the rejection, we
will assume the former.
Appellant does not argue that there is no motivation to
combine the teachings of the references. Instead, appellant
argues that "[t]he combination of Levine and Taijonlahti[,] if
such combination is feasible," fails to satisfy the
limitations of the claims (Brief at 22). For the following
reasons, we agree only as to claims 6 and 16.
Comparing claim 1 to the combined teachings, the claimed
"program routine" reads on Levine's job lot, which includes a
plurality of patterns to be cut from plural sheets of stock.
Appellant's argument that Levine's "job lot" programming
concerns a single program rather than series of separate
program routines (Reply Br. at 1-2) is unconvincing, because
Levine's "job lot" programming, even if written as a single
program, can be considered to consist of a plurality of
program routines. Levine's identification of the groups of
patterns to be included in a job lot satisfies claim 1's step
- 10 -
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007