Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
supports the conclusion of the examiner that it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to substitute the
conveyor of Winn with a conveyor system employing counter rotating
belts as both systems would perform the function of conveying the
cartons through the opening, stamping, and closing stations as
desired by Winn.
While, as pointed out by my colleagues, Reichert, Lam, and
Baker do not describe using a conveyor system having counter
rotating belts in an opening station, in my mind, that fact does
not vitiate the rejection. The evidence as a whole weighs in favor
of a determination of obviousness. Winn specifically describes
using a chain conveyor traversing through all three stations
including the opening station. The opening apparatus of Winn, as
shown in the front view of Figure 3 and side view of Figure 4
operates from above. One of ordinary skill in the art would have
recognized that counter rotating conveyor belts could be used in
place of the described chain conveyor along the opening station as
well as along the stamping and closing stations. That fact along
with the evidence that conveyor systems employing counter rotating
belts were known in this art supports a conclusion of obviousness.
For the above reasons, I conclude, based upon the
preponderance of the evidence, that the appellant’s claimed
15
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007