Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
that other conveying systems cannot be used. The lone fact that
Winn describes using a chain and pad conveying system does not in
itself teach against the use of alternative conveying systems
without more. “In general, a reference will teach away if it
suggests that the line of development flowing from the reference's
disclosure is unlikely to be productive of the result sought by the
applicant.” In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553, 31 USPQ2d 1130, 1131
(Fed. Cir. 1994). In other words, the reference must lead one of
ordinary skill in the art to the conclusion that the modification
will not work. See Baxter Int’l, Inc. v. McGaw, Inc., 149 F.3d
1321, 1328, 47 USPQ2d 1225, 1230 (Fed. Cir. 1998). Winn does not
indicate that other conveyor systems will not work, it is merely
silent. Such silence is not a teaching away.
Appellant further argues that “the addition of the Lam,
Reichert, and Baker references to the disclosure of Winn does not
anticipate, teach or suggest the invention as recited in the claims
of the present invention.” (Brief, p. 6). Appellant proceeds to
note differences between the prior art conveyor systems and the
conveyor system of the claims. Appellant also notes that only he
teaches or suggests the use of a counter rotating belt system
extending through all three stations, i.e., the opening, stamping,
10
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007