Appeal No. 2001-0553
Application 09/218,910
different film sensing, feeding and braking apparatus of the
wrapping machine in Stanford.
Like appellants, we consider that the modification of
Armington’s stock roll cart urged by the examiner is merely a
hindsight reconstruction based on the impermissible use of
appellants’ own disclosure and teachings as a blueprint for
piecing together the relied upon prior art. In that regard,
we are in general agreement with appellants’ arguments as
presented in their brief (pages 16-20) and reply brief. Thus,
we will not sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims 1
through 24, 25 and 30 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Armington in view of Stanford.
We have also reviewed the patent to Block applied by the
examiner along with Armington and Stanford against claims 26
through 29 on appeal, but find nothing therein that provides
for the deficiencies we have found in the examiner’s attempted
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007