Appeal No. 2002-1945
Application 09/452,072
In the examiner’s view, “it would have been obvious to one
having ordinary skill in the art at [the] time of the invention
to provide a brush made of bristle as taught by Anthony in the
APA [admitted prior art] net wrap material feeding mechanism to
strip net material” (answer, page 3). The Anthony cotton lint
cleaner, however, has little, if any, practical relevance to the
admitted prior art net wrap feeding mechanism, and the doffing
cylinder 30 with its bristles 30a would seem to be structurally
and functionally incompatible with the admitted prior art
mechanism. Moreover, nothing in Anthony’s disclosure of the
doffing cylinder and bristles contemplates the dual purpose
served by the appellants’ wrap material stripper bristles. In
this light, and given their disparate natures, it is evident that
the only suggestion for selectively combining the admitted prior
art net wrap feeding mechanism and the Anthony cotton lint
cleaner in the manner proposed by the examiner stems from
hindsight knowledge impermissibly derived from the appellants’
disclosure.
Therefore, we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) rejection of claim 8 as being unpatentable over the
admitted prior art in view of Anthony.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007