Appeal No. 2002-1058
Application 09/228,856
In the present case, the examiner fails to advance any
factual basis to supply the admitted deficiencies of Scarpa vis-
a-vis the subject matter recited in independent claims 1, 16, 24,
35 and 36. Instead, the examiner attempts to bridge Scarpa’s
evidentiary gaps by resort to so-called mechanical or per se
rules of obviousness allegedly established by the St. Regis and
Japikse cases. Such rules do not exist, however, and the
reliance thereon by the examiner to establish obviousness under
§ 103(a) is improper. See In re Ochiai, 71 F.3d 1565, 1570, 37
USPQ2d 1127, 1132 (Fed. Cir. 1995); In re Wright, 343 F.2d 761,
769-70, 145 USPQ 182, 190 (CCPA 1965).
Hence, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
rejection of independent claims 1, 16, 24, 35 and 36, and
dependent claims 2 through 14, 17 through 21 and 25 through 34,
as being unpatentable over Scarpa.
II. The rejection based on Scarpa in view of Dieterlen
Dieterlen discloses a rotary knife apparatus disposed
between an upstream pouch form, fill and seal machine and a
downstream cartoning machine. The rotary knife apparatus 40
consists of a major knife hub 50 having a plurality of blades 56
and a minor knife hub 52 having a plurality of blades 60, which
blades cooperate to shear individual pouches 42 from a pouch web
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007