Appeal No. 2002-1066
Application No. 09/304,021
artisan and not from appellants’ disclosure). Fourth, Green’s
teaching at column 6, lines 50-59, that the method and apparatus
disclosed therein results in small errors in location of the cuts
would have acted as a disincentive to one of ordinary skill in
the art in regard to use of Green’s controller in Yankaitis,
where a high degree of accuracy is a matter of importance (see
column 2, lines 12-19). Fifth, modifying Yankaitis by providing
a controller like that of Green therein, as the examiner appears
to propose, would altogether change the principle of operation of
Yankaitis for the reasons explained by appellants on page 17 of
main brief, which is a further indication that the proposed
modification would not have been obvious in light of the
reference teachings. See In re Ratti, 270 F.2d 810, 813, 123
USPQ 349, 352 (CCPA 1959).
In light of the foregoing, we shall not sustain the standing
rejection of claims 1, 6-8, 19, 20 and 22-24 as being
unpatentable over Yankaitis in view of Green.
We also shall not sustain the standing rejection of claims
4, 5, 26 and 27 as being unpatentable further in view of AAPA
since AAPA does not overcome the deficiencies of Yankaitis and
Green discussed above.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007