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