Ex parte RITTER - Page 6

                 Appeal No. 1997-4279                                                                                                                   
                 Application No. 08/486,702                                                                                                             

                          In applying the test for obviousness,  this panel of the          3                                                           
                 board makes the determination that it would have been obvious                                                                          
                 to one having ordinary skill in the art, from a combined                                                                               
                 assessment of the applied prior art teachings, to provide the                                                                          
                 coating apparatus of the German reference (Fig. 2) with a                                                                              
                 feeder to                                                                                                                              

                 obtain overlapped sheets on the conveyor.   From our                      4                                                            
                 perspective, the incentive on the part of one having ordinary                                                                          
                 skill in the art for making this modification would have                                                                               
                 simply been to obtain the art-recognized benefit of                                                                                    
                 overlapping sheets to be coated on a conveyor, i.e., the                                                                               
                 benefit of, in effect, an uninterrupted paper surface on the                                                                           
                 conveyor belt, as a consequence of which no coating can be                                                                             

                          3The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings                                                                      
                 of references would have suggested to one of ordinary skill in                                                                         
                 the art.  See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18 USPQ2d 1089,                                                                          
                 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208                                                                         
                 USPQ 871, 881 (CCPA 1981).                                                                                                             

                          4The Klebanow teaching (Fig. 1; column 4, lines 41                                                                            
                 through 44) also clearly instructs those versed in the coating                                                                         
                 art of the known feature of dual conveyor belts 15, 24                                                                                 
                 operated at different speeds to effect separation of                                                                                   
                 overlapped sheets.                                                                                                                     

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007