Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
the prior art references relied upon by the examiner do not
expressly state a specific advantage for using the counter rotating
belts does not mean that the use of such belts would have been
unobvious. The pros and cons of using a chain versus a pair of
counter rotating belts would have been known to those of ordinary
skill in the art, both systems having been described in the prior
art.
Appellant notes that Reichert, Lam and Baker do not describe a
conveying system extending through the opening, stamping, and
closing stations (Brief, pp. 6-7). But that fact does not
foreclose a conclusion of obviousness in this case. Winn discloses
a conveying system extending as claimed and the question is: Are
the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented
and the prior art, i.e., the differences in the conveying
mechanism, such that the subject matter as a whole would have been
obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having
ordinary skill in the art. See 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)(2002). The
examiner has used the secondary references to show that it was
known to use conveying systems employing a pair of counter rotating
conveyor belts to convey cigarette cartons through various
apparatus in the same art. A preponderance of the evidence
14
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007