Appeal No. 2003-0510
Application No. 09/524,904
“successive” language of the claims. In this regard, we do not
consider that the claims require the cross blade to be rotatable
about an axis perpendicular to one of the blade’s major faces to
successively bring a new cutting edge into an operative
position.3 The argument in the first full paragraph on page 4 of
the reply brief that rotating the cross cutter blade 94 of
Sederberg to expose the two short sides of the blade would
clearly be unworkable also appears to be founded on appellants’
unreasonably narrow interpretation of the scope of the
“indexable” “rotatable” and “successive” language of the claims.
Moreover, the ordinarily skilled artisan would not operate
Sederberg in this manner.4
In light of the above, we shall sustain the standing
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of claim 1 as being unpatentable
3In this regard, note page 7, lines 11-13, of appellants’
specification, where the elongated lower shear blades 36 and
37 are rotated and flipped around “to successively bring each of
the four cutting surfaces into position for shearing” (emphasis
added). Thus, based on appellants’ original disclosure,
“successive” exposure of cutting edges does not preclude the sort
of manipulation that would be required to bring the four long
cutting edges of Sederberg’s rectangular cross cutting blade into
operative position.
4To conclude otherwise would require the presumption of
stupidity rather than skill on the part of the ordinarily skilled
artisan. See In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774
(Fed. Cir. 1985)
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007