Appeal No. 2002-1127
Application No. 09/042,897
The examiner notes that Miyake discloses (column 10, lines 3-6) that any cutting tool may
be utilized in the practice of Miyake’s method. Based on this disclosure and the disclosures of
D’Angelo and Helprin of other cutting tools for cutting sheet material, the examiner considers that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’ invention to
practice the method of Miyake by utilizing a cutting head of the type disclosed by D’Angelo or
Helprin, wherein the cutting head includes first and second blades fixedly mounted to the head at an
acute angle relative to the web. Concerning the claim requirement that the blades are positioned at
an angle of from about ten degrees to about fifteen degrees relative to the web material, the
examiner has advanced several theories (answer, page 14) as to why this limitation does not
patentably distinguish over the applied prior art. The examiner also considers that the particular
film material being cut does not distinguish over the applied prior art.
Among the arguments made by appellants in the main and reply briefs is the recurring
argument that “[t]he rejections of the claims on appeal are deficient with respect to providing proper
motivation of a person having skill in the art to combine the various applied art references in the
combination and manner suggested by the Examiner” (main brief, page 10).
We appreciate that Miyake states at column 10, lines 3-6, that any known cutting tool may
be utilized in the practice of Miyake’s method. We also appreciate that D’Angelo and Helprin
disclose fixed blade cutters for cutting sheet material. Notwithstanding these disclosures, we fail to
perceive any teaching or suggestion of the advantage, and thus the obviousness, of substituting
fixed blade cutters of the type disclosed by D’Angelo and Helprin for Miyake’s rotating circular
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007