Appeal No. 2003-0595 Page 4
Application No. 09/294,354
§ 103(a) as being obvious2 in view of the combined teachings of Raudaskoski and
Krüger. Looking first to independent claim 1, although Krüger has been cited along with
Raudaskoski, as we understand the rejection of this claim it is the examiner’s view that
Raudaskoski discloses all of the subject matter claimed, except Raudaskoski “may not
disclose a column device, although the appellant’s broad language suggests that the
phrase ‘column device’ should be read broadly,” but in any event it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art “to provide either a column device or a
foundation to be connected by the cross member comprising a sealing box, since either
results in a rigid machine frame” (Answer, pages 3 and 4).3 Among the appellant’s
arguments is that Raudaskoski fails to disclose or suggest a crossbar comprising a
sealing box and connecting together column devices on each end of the rolls. We
agree with the appellant on this point.
In the embodiment shown in Figures 3 and 4, to which the examiner has
referred, Raudaskoski discloses a roll winding device comprising a pair of carrying rolls
2The test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the prior art would have suggested to
one of ordinary skill in the art. See, for example, In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ 871, 881
(CCPA 1981). In establishing a prima facie case of obviousness, it is incumbent upon the examiner to
provide a reason why one of ordinary skill in the art would have been led to modify a prior art reference or
to combine reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. See Ex parte Clapp, 227 USPQ 972,
973 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1985). To this end, the requisite motivation must stem from some teaching,
suggestion or inference in the prior art as a whole or from the knowledge generally available to one of
ordinary skill in the art and not from the appellant's disclosure. See, for example, Uniroyal, Inc. v. Rudkin-
Wiley Corp., 837 F.2d 1044, 1052, 5 USPQ2d 1434, 1439 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 825 (1988).
3Krüger has been applied for its teaching of utilizing a reel cutter in combination with a roll winding
machine, a requirement that is present only in claims 7, 18 and 28.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007