Appeal No. 2002-1066
Application No. 09/304,021
the park position. The pulse generated by pulse generator 36
“resets to zero the accumulated pulse counts generated by pulse
generators 30 and 36” (column 3, lines 24-26).
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art “to modify Yankaitis’s device with
the teachings of Green in order to sever the workpiece at the
desired and suitable location and to increase the reliability of
the device” (answer, page 3). The examiner also contends that
Green’s device provides more reliable cutting operation
by employing sensors to control the cutter in relation
to the position of the workpiece, and there is a clear
motivation to do so in the Green’s [sic, Green]
reference. It is for that reason that it would have
been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to
employ an additional sensor with a controller in order
to achieve a more reliable cutting operation. [Answer,
page 6.]
Green, however, does not provide a basis for modifying
Yankaitis in a manner that would result in the subject matter of
independent claims 1 and/or 19. First, it is not clear to us
precisely how the examiner proposes to modify Yankaitis in view
of the teachings of Green. In this regard, the examiner’s
statement that it would have been obvious “to modify Yankaitis’s
device with the teaching of Green” (answer, page 3) and that it
would have been obvious “to employ an additional sensor with a
controller [in Yankaitis]” (answer, page 6) does not suffice.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007