Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
Under Section 103, to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness, “there must be some teaching, suggestion, or
motivation to combine the [prior art] references. [Citation
omitted].” In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355, 47 USPQ2d 1453,
1456 (Fed. Cir. 1998). When determining the patentability of a
claimed invention which combines several elements, “the question is
whether there is something in the prior art as a whole to suggest
the desirability, and thus the obviousness, of making the
combination. [Citation omitted].” Rouffett, 149 F.3d at 1356,
47 USPQ at 1456.
Here, the examiner relies on Winn, Lam, Reichert and Baker
‘766 to arrive at the claimed cigarette package stamping apparatus
and method1 requiring, inter alia,
an adjustable transport conveyor for moving a plurality
of containers sequentially along a transport path through
an opening station, a stamping station, and a closing
station, the entire transport path extending between
first and second counter rotating conveyor belts operably
engaging opposite sides of each container to be
transported for imparting motion thereto...
However, Winn, Lam, Reichert and Baker ‘766 as a whole do not teach
or suggest employing the claimed adjustable transport conveyor
1 The examiner relies on Matsunaga, Kimball, Baker ‘362, York
and Mattei to show different features in the claims on appeal.
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007