Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
rotating belts were known in the art (Reichert, Lam, Baker). On
its face, the substitution of one conveyor system with another
known conveyor system for accomplishing the very same conveying
function would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the
art. Therefore, I agree with the examiner that substitution of the
chain conveyor system of Winn with a counter rotating belt system
known in the art would have been prima facie obvious to one of
ordinary skill in the art. There is no dispute that Winn meets the
other limitations of claims 1 and 12 (Brief, pp. 6-7).
Appellant argues that “the Winn reference specifically teaches
against the combination asserted by the Examiner.” (Brief, p. 6).
This is because, according to appellant, “the Winn reference
discloses that the ‘conveyor 1 moves the cartons 3 against a chain
4 with pads 5 attached thereto for propelling the cartons 3 through
the apparatus’.” (Brief, p. 6 citing col. 3, ll. 26-28 of Winn).
Appellant provides no further explanation as to why this teaching
in Winn is a teaching against the use of a conveying system having
counter rotating belts as a substitute for the chain and pad system
of Winn. Nor can we find such a teaching away. Winn does not
describe the chain and pad conveying system as essential for
conveying the cartons through the apparatus nor does Winn indicate
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007