Appeal No. 2002-0675
Application No. 09/217,876
the AirFil brochure by substituting a pneumatic conveyor as
taught by Long or Wiseman.
Claims 7 through 9, 14 through 19 and 22 through 24 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over the AirFil
brochure in view of Long, Wiseman and Ross. According to the
examiner, Ross teaches the concept of using bins and an overhead
track to collect and transport articles. Thus, the examiner
concludes, that it would have been obvious to use the Ross et al.
teaching of collecting articles in a bin in the system of the
AirFil brochure as modified by Long and Wiseman.
OPINION
We have carefully reviewed the claimed subject matter in
light of the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As a
result of this review, we have reached the determination that the
applied prior art does not establish the prima facie obviousness
of the claimed subject matter. Accordingly, the rejections of
the claims on appeal are reversed. Our reasons follow.
We are in agreement with the examiner that the Airfil
brochure discloses a machine for manufacturing a continuous
string of air-filled cushions. With respect to page 3 of the
brochure, apparently a web of manufactured cushions exits the
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007