Appeal No. 2004-0065 Page 5
Application No. 09/642,585
attempting to piece together isolated disclosures and teachings of the prior art so that
the claimed invention is rendered obvious.
In the alternative obviousness rejection of claims 1 through 11, 24 and 25 based
on Focke in view of Jeffrey, the examiner’s urges that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Focke’s package processing apparatus by
having an applying means, apparently located at the downstream end of what the
examiner characterizes as the first conveyor (29), for applying adhesive to the
packages/blanks therein, as suggested by Jeffrey, in order to provide a new and
improved method for producing a container/package.
The only argument we find in appellants’ brief and reply brief that appears to be
specifically directed to this rejection is found on pages 10-11 of the brief, wherein
appellants contend that “[i]t would not be possible to apply accurately adhesive to
blanks within an accumulator conveyor,” like that seen at (29) of Focke. Appellants also
point to the fact that the accumulator belts (30, 31) of the accumulator conveyor (29) in
Focke converge in the direction of transport to exert a restraining force on the packages
therein (Fig. 2), and subsequently contend that Focke would not work without such an
accumulator conveyor. We fail to perceive the significance of the second point noted
above, since the examiner in the rejection based on Focke in view of Jeffrey under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) does not suggest elimination of the accumulator conveyor therein, but
merely urges that it would have been obvious to one ordinary skill in the art to modify
Focke’s package processing apparatus by having an adhesive applying means located
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007