Appeal No. 2001-1486
Application No. 09/137,218
[presumably, cart (12)] that holds stock material with laterally
spaced apart feet support means [Reichental’s element 70?] . . .
[but] does not show the removable means as claimed.” The examiner
concludes, however, that it would have been obvious “to provide
Reichental with feet support means as taught by Reid to provide
better adjustability means” (final rejection, page 2). Implicit in
the rejection is the examiner’s position that the above
modification of Reichental would result in the subject matter of
claim 157.
The rejection is not well founded for several reasons. First,
the examiner has not adequately addressed appellants’ argument on
page 9 of the main brief to the effect that Reichental does not
disclose a single stand that supports both the cushioning
conversion machine and the holder for the roll of stock material.
Second, for the reasons noted above, we do not consider that Reid
can be said to teach a stand having removable feet. Third, it is
not clear to us where the combined teachings of Reichental and Reid
teach a single stand for supporting a cushioning conversion machine
wherein the stand includes feet having supports for supporting a
holder for a roll of stock material and wherein “the machine [is]
mounted to the stand such that the machine readily can be removed
9
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007