Appeal No. 1998-1912
Application No. 08/780,744
Looking first at claim 3, this claim depends from claim 1
and adds that the path of movement in the transferring step is
along a substantially vertical path. The examiner recognizes
that the path of movement in the transferring step of Knudsen
is along a substantially horizontal path. Nevertheless, the
examiner considers that it would have been obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art
to rearrange the orientation of the transfer device
[of Knudsen] since [appellants’] specification fails
to disclose solving any specific problem by
vertically transferring the severed blank and it
appears that either orientation works equally well
as the other. [Answer, page 5.]
Considering Knudsen, while it is true that the drawing
figures thereof illustrate the path of movement of the inserts
in the transferring step to be horizontal, Knudsen does not
appear at any point to indicate that this orientation is of an
particular significance. As to appellants’ method and
apparatus, we are told at several places in the specification
that disposing the first (receptacle) station at a level above
the second (severing) station, and providing a path of
movement in the transferring step that is substantially
vertical is merely a preferred way of orienting the apparatus.
12
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007