Appeal No. 2001-0093
Application No. 08/947,149
any particular means or technique is followed (other
that the laterally moving conveyor) to allow omission
of these guides. Either using these guides, omitting
these guides and their function or omitting these
guides in favor of other equivalent techniques of
accomplishing their function (e.g. manually) would
therefore again have been obvious alternatives and lead
to only the expected results.
This obviousness conclusion is not well founded. The
applied reference simply contains no teaching or suggestion of
eliminating guide rollers 16. Stated otherwise, the reference
contains nothing which would have motivated one with ordinary
skill in the art to so modify the Regterschot process. In this
latter regard, the examiner seems to believe that an artisan
would have been motivated to eliminate patentee’s guide rollers
16 in order to avoid “the possibility for damage to the strip”
(id.). However, the applied reference contains utterly no
disclosure concerning this possibility. In the record before us
on this appeal, only the appellants have disclosed the
possibility for damage to the belt construction strip due to use
of a lateral stop.
Under these circumstances, we regard the examiner’s
conclusion of obviousness as being inadequately supported by
evidence. It is our perception that, in formulating the
rejection before us, the examiner has fallen victim to the
insidious effect of hindsight syndrome wherein that which only
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007