Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
invention, as represented by claims 1 and 12, would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art within the meaning of
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 25 and 29
Appellant groups and argues claims 25 and 29 separately
(Brief, p.5 and pp. 9-10). These claims are directed to a pair of
stops coordinated with the stamping head. The examiner takes
Official Notice of the fact that the use of such multiple stops was
well known in the art. Appellant objects to the examiner’s use of
Official Notice (Brief, p. 10). The examiner has failed to present
evidence in support of the statement that multiple stops as claimed
are well known. Moreover, the conventional nature of multiple
stops positioned as claimed is not capable of such instant and
unquestionable demonstration as to defy dispute. In re Ahlert,
424 F.2d 1088, 165 USPQ 418 (CCPA 1970). I, therefore, conclude
that the examiner has failed to establish a prima facie case of
obviousness with respect to the subject matter of claims 25 and 29.
Claims 9 and 20
Appellant groups and argues claims 9 and 20 separately (Brief,
p. 5 and p. 11). These claims are directed to a loading station.
The examiner finds that Winn describes the required loading
station: It consists of conveyor 1. Appellant argues that Winn
16
Page: Previous 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007