Appeal No. 2002-0956
Application 09/182,366
and “[i]n view of [the British reference] and [the German
reference] . . . to provide the modified device of Spengler with
a pivotally mounted cam in order to ensure proper handling of a
. . . web product” (answer, pages 4 and 5).
Even if Mattison is assumed to be analogous art (the
appellants urge that it is not), however, there is nothing in the
combined teachings of these references which would have suggested
replacing the counter pressure belt 17 in Spengler’s fabric
cutting apparatus with the heavy duty woodworking belt disclosed
by Mattison, or providing Spengler’s fabric cutting roller 21
with a pivotally mounted cam in view of the British reference’s
corrugated board scrap knockout lever and the German reference’s
lubrication and metal particle debris scraper blade. The only
suggestion for combining these disparate structures so as to
arrive at the apparatus recited in claim 1 stems from hindsight
knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellants’ disclosure.
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of claim 1, and dependent claims 2 through 4, 6, 7, 9
through 12, 14 and 15, as being unpatentable over Spengler in
view of Mattison, the British reference and the German reference.
Since Heynhold does not overcome the above noted
deficiencies in the examiner’s reference evidence relative to the
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007