Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
specification, page 1. According to appellant (the specification,
pages 1-3), the automated apparatus in question is not only useful
for stamping different size cigarette packs, but is also useful for
improving the efficiency of the stamping operation. Further
details of the appealed subject matter are recited in claims 1, 12,
26 and 30 which are appended to this decision.
PRIOR ART
In support of his rejections, the examiner relies on the
following prior art references:
Reichert 3,902,406 Sep. 2, 1975
Baker et al. (Baker ‘362) 4,101,362 Jul. 18, 1978
Baker et al. (Baker ‘766) 4,263,766 Apr. 28, 1981
Kimball et al. (Kimball) 4,589,943 May 20, 1986
Mattei et al. (Mattei) 4,655,871 Apr. 7, 1987
York et al. (York) 4,969,305 Nov. 13, 1990
Winn 5,168,883 Dec. 8, 1992
Lam 5,440,852 Aug. 15, 1995
Matsunaga 5,582,663 Dec. 10, 1996
The claims on appeal stand rejected as follows:
1. Claims 1, 3, 4, 8 through 12, 14, 15, 19 through 22, 25 and 29
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over the combined
disclosures of Winn, Lam, Reichert and Baker ‘766;
2. Claims 6, 7, 17 and 18 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over the combined disclosures of Winn, Lam,
Reichert, Baker ‘766 and Matsunaga;
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007