Ex Parte HAHNE et al - Page 5




              Appeal No. 2003-1915                                                                  Page 5                
              Application No. 09/423,232                                                                                  


              Applying this guidance to the situation at hand leads us to agree with the appellants                       
              that this rejection of claim 82 is defective and should not be sustained. Our reasoning                     
              follows.                                                                                                    
                     Hahne ‘651 discloses a machine for compressing a stack of objects comprising                         
              two opposed side walls and two pressing end elements.  While the Hahne ‘651                                 
              apparatus also includes electrodes located at the side walls to charge the stack, it does                   
              not disclose an electrode positioned at the end of the stack, much less an electrode                        
              that is a metal plate in contact with the stack and which is part of one of the pressing                    
              elements.                                                                                                   
                     In Hahne ‘257 an electrode 13 is located “above stack 6 [of the objects]” (column                    
              2, line 20, emphasis added).  As shown in Figure 2, electrode 13 is spaced from the top                     
              of the stack of objects, and there is no teaching in this reference that electrode 13 is in                 
              contact with the stack. This being the case, it is our view that no suggestion is present                   
              in Hahne ‘257 that would have motivated one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a metal                 
              plate as a charging electrode, to place it in contact with the end of the stack, and to do                  
              so by making it part of one of the two end pressing elements, as required by claim 82.                      
                     The combined teachings of Hahne ‘651 and Hahne ‘257 thus fail to establish a                         
              prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the subject matter recited in                               
              independent claim 82, and we will not sustain the rejection of claim 82 or, it follows, of                  
              claims 83-90 and 93-103, which depend therefrom.                                                            








Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007