Appeal No. 2000-2229
Application No. 09/126,766
The arguments contained in the appellants’ brief focus on
the proposed modification of Steidinger in view of Ohmori, with
the appellants highlighting the individual shortcomings of each
reference vis-a-vis the subject matter recited in claim 8 and
urging that there is no suggestion to combine the two in the
manner advanced by the examiner. Non-obviousness cannot be
established, however, by attacking references individually where,
as here, the rejection is based upon the teachings of a
combination of references. In re Merck & Co., Inc., 800 F.2d
1091, 1097, 231 USPQ 375, 380 (Fed. Cir. 1986). Ohmori clearly
establishes that helical knives were conventional in web cutting
devices of the sort claimed at the time of the appellants’
invention.4 Furthermore, Ohmori teaches that helical knives are
superior to straight knives in terms of reducing the load exerted
on the blade-supporting rolls during the web cutting operation.
This teaching would have provided the artisan with ample
motivation or suggestion to utilize a helical knife in place of
Steidinger’s straight knife or blade 14. Hence, the appellants’
position that the proposed combination of these two references
rests on impermissible hindsight is not persuasive.
Similarly, Schriber’s teaching that the anvil cylinder of a
rotary cutter can be provided with a hardened surface would have
4 The appellants concede as much through their depiction of
the prior art in Figures 7 and 8 of the instant application.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007