Appeal No. 2004-1671
Application No. 09/905,024
by those claims (Brief, p. 14). It is that frame the examiner
finds would have been obvious to incorporate into the apparatus of
Winn to allow adjustment to different heights (Final Rejection, p.
15). Appellant argues that Kimball describes a stamp applicator
that does not meet the limitations of claims 26 and 30. This
argument is not persuasive because the examiner did not rely upon
Kimball for a teaching of the stamping head, Winn provides the
required teaching. I agree with the responses to argument advanced
by the examiner (Answer, pp. 8-9) and, hereby, incorporate those
responses by reference. I conclude that the examiner has
established a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to the
subject matter of claims 26 and 30 which has not been sufficiently
rebutted by appellant.
Issue 4: The Rejection over Winn, Reichert, Lam, Baker and Baker
‘362
To reject claims 5 and 16, the Examiner adds Baker ‘362.
Appellant’s argument is directed to the transport conveyor which,
as discussed above with respect to Issue 1, I have explained would
have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time
of the invention as evidenced by the combination of Winn, Reichert,
Lam, and Baker.
I conclude that the examiner has established a prima facie
19
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007