Appeal No. 2002-1050
Application 09/425,505
Claim 5 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Gerber in view of Tucker.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 15 and 18) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 16) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
I. The 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) rejection of claims 1 through 4
On page 3 in the main brief, the appellants state that
“Claims 1-4 stand or fall together.” Accordingly, pursuant to 37
CFR § 1.192(c)(7) we have selected representative claim 1 from
the group and shall decide the appeal as to the § 102(b)
rejection on the basis of this claim alone. In other words,
claims 2 through 4 stand or fall with claim 1.
Turning now to the merits of the rejection, Gerber discloses
an automatically controlled cutting machine for cutting single or
multi-ply fabric layups in accordance with pre-established
cutting paths. In general, the cutting machine 10 comprises a
cutting table 22 having a bed of bristles 24 for supporting a
layup L, a reciprocating blade 20 (or alternatively a band blade
or a rotary blade) positioned over the bed, an X-carriage 26
driven by an X-drive motor 34 and a Y-carriage 28 driven by a
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007