Appeal No. 1998-1912
Application No. 08/780,744
Knudsen’s device such that the first (receptacle) station is
above of the second (severing) station is further considered
to be an obvious matter of engineering choice. In the matter
of claim 15, when Knudsen’s device is oriented so that the
path of movement of the inserts is vertical, Knudsen’s
deforming means 156 and 176 are located above
the second (severing) station for at least a portion of the
transfer stroke. In view of the above, we also will sustain
the standing rejection of claims 8, 11, 15 and 17 as being
unpatentable over Knudsen.
Claim 10 requires that the conveyor is indexable about a
substantially vertical axis and that the path of movement of
the blanks during the transfer step is substantially vertical.
Claims 21 and 22 contain similar limitations. Thus, these
claims in effect require that the path of movement of the
blanks during the transfer step is substantially parallel to
the indexing axis of the conveyor. In contrast, the path of
movement of Knudsen’s inserts is substantially perpendicular
to the indexing axis of table 22. Accordingly, even if
Knudsen’s device were to be oriented such that the path of
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007