Appeal No. 2002-0072 Page 7
Application No. 08/956,912
suggestion or incentive to do so. Moreover, the examiner has provided no evidence
that a headstop system could cause the signatures to be placed one atop the other, as
is required by Kobler, and in any event the proposed modification would necessitate a
wholesale reconstruction of the Kobler mechanism, which in our view would be a
disincentive to the artisan to make the modification.
Thus, the combined teachings of Kobler and Odeau fail to establish a prima facie
case of obviousness with regard to the subject matter of claim 3, and we will not sustain
the rejection.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1, 7 and 8 as being anticipated by Kobler is sustained.
The rejection of claim 2 as being anticipated by Kobler is not sustained.
The rejection of claim 3 as being unpatentable over Kobler in view of Odeau is
not sustained.
The decision of the examiner is affirmed-in-part.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007