Appeal No. 1999-2099
Application No. 08/475,627
each machine "typically has a respective independent
controller." Moreover, it is not apparent why appellants
would consider a network of cushioning conversion machines
with a supervisory controller to be an aspect of their
invention, as stated at page 11, lines 9 to 12, if such a
network were already known in the prior art.
Accordingly, rejection (1) will not be sustained.
Rejection (2)
With regard to claims 1, 4 to 9 and 14, rejected in
rejection (1), the examiner states that this rejection applies
to those claims if the AAPA is not interpreted as defining a
plurality of machines each having a controller in
communication with a supervisory controller.
Each of the secondary references, Groenteman, Kawamura,
Dietrich and Lobiondo, discloses a control network. After 4
4Our consideration of these references has not been
facilitated by the fact that on pages 5 and 6 of the answer,
the examiner describes each of them in virtually identical
language. Also, the examiner does not explain how the
combination of the AAPA and each of these references meets the
particular limitations of the various claims, even though
appellants argue many of the claims separately on pages 19 to
21 of the brief.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007