Appeal No. 1998-1912
Application No. 08/780,744
claimed vertical path of movement of blanks in the
transferring step would have been an obvious matter of
engineering choice to one of ordinary skill in the art, such
that the subject matter of claim 3 as a whole would
have been obvious in view of Knudsen. See In re Kuhle, 526
F.2d 553, 555, 188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975) (where use of
particular connection in lieu of those used in the reference
solves no stated problem, particular connection held to be
obvious matter of design choice within the skill in the art);
In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 672-73, 149 USPQ 47, 50 (CCPA
1966) (configuration of claimed disposable plastic nursing
container held to be obvious matter of choice absent
persuasive evidence that the particular configuration was
significant). It follows that we will sustain the standing §
103 rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable over Knudsen.
Concerning claim 11, orienting Knudsen’s device so that
the path of movement of the inserts is vertical would result
in the cutting edges for severing Knudsen’s inserts being
substantially horizontal. As to claims 8 and 17, orienting
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007