Appeal No. 2000-2229
Application No. 09/126,766
furnished the artisan with ample suggestion or motivation to
provide same to Steidinger’s anvil cylinder 12 for the self-
evident purpose of increasing its resistance to wear, which would
result in more accurate seating of the knife as pointed out by
the examiner. The appellants do not dispute that a substantially
rigid coating layer as recited in claim 8 would fall within the
ambit of Schriber’s suggestion in this regard.
Thus, the combined teachings of Steidinger, Ohmori and
Schriber justify the examiner’s conclusion that the differences
between the subject matter recited in claim 8 and the prior art
are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, we shall sustain the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 8 as being
unpatentable over Steidinger in view of Ohmori and Schriber.
We also shall sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of dependent claim 3 as being unpatentable over
Steidinger in view of Ohmori and Schriber, the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of dependent claim 4 as being unpatentable
over Steidinger in view of Ohmori, Schriber and Hornung, and the
standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 5
through 7 as being unpatentable over Steidinger in view of
Ohmori, Schriber, Von Schriltz and Kalpakjian. The appellants
have not challenged these rejections with any reasonable
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007