Appeal No. 2001-1210 Page 10
Application No. 09/255,990
[i]t would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have cleaned
one side [of the paper sheet] then the other [side of the paper sheet] as taught
by Takeuchi instead of simultaneously so as to get the dirt forced through the
paper by the first cleaner.
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 18-19) that Wood, Grindley and Takeuchi do not
suggest the subject matter of claim 5 for the same reasons as set forth with respect to
claim 1 and further since (1) Wood discloses cleaning both sides concurrently;
(2) Grindley cleans only one side with only one cleaning apparatus; and (3) Takeuchi is
concerned with cleaning a web and not with cleaning sheets.
In applying the above-noted test for obviousness, we reach the same conclusion
as the examiner. That is, in view of the combined teachings of Wood Grindley and
Takeuchi, it would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person of
ordinary skill in the art to have used the method of cleaning prior to printing taught by
Wood in a sheet-fed perfecting press process and to have cleaned one side of the
paper sheet then the other side of the paper sheet as suggested by Takeuchi instead of
simultaneously.
The argument advanced by the appellants does not convince us that claim 5 is
patentable for the following reasons. First, the appellants have argued the deficiencies
of each reference on an individual basis. However, as set forth above, it is well
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007