Appeal No. 1998-1912
Application No. 08/780,744
movement of the inserts during transfer is vertical, the
subject matter of claims 10, 21 and 22 would not result.
Further, it would require a major reconstruction of Knudsen’s
device to attain the claimed relationship. For these reasons,
the § 103 rejection of claims 10, 21 and 22 as being
unpatentable over Knudsen will not be sustained.
New Ground of Rejection
Pursuant to our authority under 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we
enter the following new ground of rejection.
Claims 16, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as being unpatentable over Knudsen. For the reasons discussed
supra in our affirmance of the standing § 103 rejection of
claims 3, 11, 15 and 17, it would have been obvious to orient
the device of Knudsen such that the first (receptacle) station
is above the second (severing) station, and with the deforming
means located above the second (severing) station for at least
a portion of the transfer stroke. The result would be an
apparatus that corresponds to the subject matter of claims 16,
16
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007