Appeal No. 2002-1878
Application No. 09/246,257
method and apparatus of the AirFil brochure by substituting a
pneumatic conveyor including duct work and a blower as taught 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 rejection of the
claims on appeal is 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
machines toward the floor where the web is taken by a conveyor
and lifted to be dumped in a bin. Apparently, an operator
removes the cushions from the bin to use as packing material as
he or she fills the boxes on the roller conveyor for shipment.
There is no indication of what type of lifting conveyor is used
for the illustrated installation, although a specific type of
conveyor is obviously commercially viable.
33
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007