Appeal No. 2000-1856 Page 3
Application No. 08/527,671
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellant and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
The examiner notes that, as admitted on pages 2-4 of
appellant’s specification (AAPA), methods for assembling a
cutter bar and insert having the structural features recited
in lines 2-6 of claim 38 into a subassembly for use in a
dispenser for thread products were known in the art at the
time of appellant’s invention. The examiner acknowledges that
these known methods differ significantly from the method
recited in claim 38. According to the examiner,
[i]n view of [Suzuki] and either of [Acton] and
[Reid], one having ordinary skill in the art would
have found it obvious to modify [AAPA] by attaching
the cutter bar to the insert by using a turret and
attaching a device in a manner analogous to that
disclosed by [Suzuki], and using a guide rail in a
manner analogous to the [guide rail] taught by each
of [Acton] and [Reid] in order to realize the
benefits that a method incorporating a turret,
attaching device and guide rail exhibits relative to
the [AAPA] processes. For example make more
efficient use of floor space could be obtained
[answer, pages 5-6].
Suzuki discloses a film magazine assembling system
wherein an indexing member 10 in the form of a rotary plate is
provided with a plurality of assembly chucks 20 each
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007