Ex parte VOLLENWEIDER - Page 11

               Appeal No. 1998-2179                                                                         Page 11                 
               Application No. 08/433,231                                                                                           

               1969).  In this instance, one of ordinary skill in the document handling art would have                              
               appreciated the advantages of providing multiple processing units to increase production.                            
               Accordingly, we conclude that to provide a plurality of Newsome's running shingle-forming                            
               devices feeding printed signatures to a corresponding plurality of winding devices of the type                       
               taught by Reist in order to increase production would have been obvious to such a skilled                            
               artisan, even without any express suggestion to do so in the applied references.                                     
                       The appellant's only additional arguments in support of the patentability of claim 21 are                    
               the same arguments advanced with regard to claim 12, discussed above.  For the same reasons                          
               cited above in our discussion of the examiner's rejection of claim 12, we find these arguments                       
               unpersuasive as to the patentability of claim 21.  Therefore, we shall sustain the examiner's                        
               rejection of claim 21.  As the appellant has elected not to separately argue the patentability of                    
               dependent claim 23 apart from claim 21, we shall treat claim 23 as standing or falling with                          
               claim 21 and thus also sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 23.3                                                
                       As to claim 22, which depends from claim 21, the appellant's only additional argument                        
               (brief, page 13) is directed to the perpendicular arrangement of the first and second conveying                      
               means.  For the reasons cited above with regard to claim 13, we do not find the appellant's                          
               argument persuasive.  Therefore, we shall also sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 22.                         

                       3See In re Young, 927 F.2d at 590, 18 USPQ2d at 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991); In re Wood, 582 F.2d 638, 642,        
               199 USPQ 137, 140 (CCPA 1978).                                                                                       

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007