Appeal No. 2004-0436
Application 09/746,251
skill in this art to use additional identical segments of the same design to provide more bottle
pockets in the reasonable expectation of accommodating the desired number and size of the
bottles to be conveyed.
Accordingly, since a prima facie case of obviousness has been established over Kantor by
the examiner, we have again evaluated all of the evidence of obviousness and nonobviousness
based on the record as a whole, giving due consideration to the weight of appellant’s arguments
in the brief. See generally, In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 1445, 24 USPQ2d 1443, 1444 (Fed.
Cir. 1992); In re Piasecki, 745 F.2d 1468, 1472, 223 USPQ 785, 788 (Fed. Cir. 1984)
As pointed out by the examiner, the two carrier segments of star wheel 43 in Kantor
Fig. 1 are identical, and each has three full bottle pockets and a half bottle pocket on each end, so
that together, the two segments of the star wheel accommodate eight bottles. We find that the
position of the examiner is that the concept of a segmented star wheel wherein the segments are
of identical design, including a half pocket at each end, was known in the art as shown by Kantor
and the use of more than two identical segments following the same segment design,
concentrically arranged on an outer annular portion around a hub to form a star wheel carrier in
order to accommodate different numbers of bottles and sizes thereof, would thus have been
reasonably suggested to one of ordinary skill in this art from the drawing of segmented star wheel
43 in Kantor Fig. 1 alone (Paper No. 8, pages 2-3; answer, pages 2-3).
Appellant argues that “the direction of the art is clear (two piece star wheel) and does not
suggest applicant’s invention (a three piece star wheel)” (brief, page 5). Appellant contends that
in segmented star wheel 43 in Kantor Fig. 1, “the star wheel portions extend inwardly to the
central shaft and the entire star wheel has to be dismantled for service or change” while “[i]n the
claimed invention annular pocket segments rather than the entire star wheel portions are
replaced” (id.). Appellant further contends that the language of claim 1 “defines the carrier, not
as a wheel or wheel portion extending outwardly from the shaft but merely as annular segments”
while in segmented star wheel 43, “the wheel or wheel portion would include material from these
segments radially inwardly to the shaft” (id.).
2 Kantor Fig. 1 also shows star wheel 2 in which each of the two carrier segments has a partial
pocket at each end thereof, wherein the bottle pockets of the star are reversed from that of star
- 3 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007