Appeal No. 2004-0116 Page 5
Application No. 09/966,307
The appellants argue that the applied prior art does not suggest the claimed
subject matter. We agree.
All the claims under appeal require an output device connected to the controller
to provide at least one of an audible and a visual output of at least one of the packaging
instructions in coordinated sequence with the at least one of the packaging instructions
for directing the packaging material supply device. However, these limitations are not
suggested by the applied prior art. In that regard, while it may have been obvious at the
time the invention was made to a person of ordinary skill in the art to have provided
DePoint's programmable controller 48, such as a general purpose computer, with
output devices such as a video monitor and speakers, the applied prior art does not
teach or suggest using any output device of a controller or computer to provide at least
one of an audible and a visual output of at least one of the packaging instructions in
coordinated sequence with the at least one of the packaging instructions for directing
the packaging material supply device. To supply this omission in the teachings of the
applied prior art, the examiner made a determination (answer, pages 4-5 and 7-8) that
the differences would have been obvious to an artisan. However, this determination
has not been supported by any evidence that would have led an artisan to arrive at the
claimed invention. In that regard, Simmons and OPTIPACK™ do not supply that which
we have indicated above to be lacking in the examiner's primary reference to DePoint.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007