Appeal No. 1998-2035
Application 08/458,783
lubricating and curling a rim of a paperboard container as set
forth above. The examiner notes that the combination of Ruza,
Lyon and Daniels lacks a reciprocal motor being used to move
the curling tools towards the paperboard container.
Buckingham is relied upon to teach a reciprocal motor (M)
moving the curling tool towards a paperboard container. As
set forth above, there is no suggestion or incentive to
combine the disparate teachings of Ruza, Lyon, and Daniels,
without impermissible hindsight reconstruction. Since the
rejection of claims 17 and 18 relies upon the improper
combination of the above references and since Buckingham does
not provide any suggestion or incentive to combine Ruza, Lyon
and Daniels, the combination of Ruza, Lyon, Daniels and
Buckingham is also an improper combination. Accordingly, we
cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of dependent claims 17
and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over
Ruza in view of Lyon, Daniels and Buckingham.
12
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007