Appeal No. 2002-0049 Page 13
Application No. 09/317,538
(5) operating the machining apparatus to cause the cutter to follow the machining path
in response to command signals generated by the controller, thereby relieving the edge
segments.
With regard to these differences, the examiner determined (answer, pages 3-4)
that
it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to have utilized the programmable chamfering apparatus
taught by Dombrowski et al. to chamfer the edges of the female tools that cause
the paper stock to snag as taught by Abe et al. for the purpose of providing an
automated chamfering device that precisely chamfers the tools (Dombrowski et
al., column 1, lines 40-41).
Implicit in this rejection is the examiner's view that the above noted modification
of Abe would result in a method which corresponds to the method recited in claim 1 in
all respects.
The argument advanced by the appellant in the brief (pages 8-11, 13 and 14)
and reply brief (pages 6-9) does not convince us that claim 1 is patentable over the
combined teachings of the applied prior art for the reasons that follow as well as the
reasons set forth by the examiner in the answer (pages 4-10).
First, the appellant has argued the deficiencies of each reference on an
individual basis. However, it is well-established that nonobviousness cannot be
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007