Appeal No. 2001-1493 Page 6
Application No. 09/109,016
Yerkes, as discussed supra, fails to disclose a cutout punch or cutout punch head and die
assembly which forms a “cutout” as that term is defined in appellant’s specification and
used in the claims.
Szanto also does not disclose a punch having a cutout punch assembly which forms
a “cutout” in a sheet of paper and, thus, does not cure the deficiency of Yerkes, noted
supra. In this regard, we find error in the examiner’s determination that
Szanto “teaches a fold line indicator punch head that forms a cut-out that acts as a gage,
allowing the sheet to straddle a pin” (answer, page 3). There is no disclosure in Szanto
that the slots 37a in the gage sheet 36 are formed by structure of Szanto’s punch. Rather,
these slots are provided, along with a plurality of holes 37, in the gage sheet 36 used with
Szanto’s punch to properly position the edge guide 18 (see column 3, lines 1-25). Szanto
is silent with regard to how the gage sheet 36 is formed. Moreover, the slots 37a are not
used as a fold line indicator as the examiner contends, but, rather, are used to straddle the
pins 17 of the punch to accurately position the gage sheet 36, so that the edge guide 18
may be properly positioned by abutting the left edge of the gage sheet 36.
For the foregoing reasons, we conclude that the combined teachings of Yerkes and
Szanto are insufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness of the subject matter
of claims 12, 14, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24 and 25. Accordingly, rejection (2) is not sustained.
Finally, with regard to rejection (3), we note, at the outset, that the examiner’s
statement that Yerkes fails to teach “a punch head that may encompass various shapes”
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007