Appeal No. 2004-2176
Application No. 09/996,624
above, the examiner has not pointed to any evidence in the record
before us that air cylinders are obvious substitutes for a screw
axis.
In view of the above, we therefore reverse the 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 3 and 18.
IV. Other Issues
Upon return of this application to the jurisdiction of the
examiner, consider whether claims 3 and 18 satisfy the requirements
of 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph. That is, these claims recite
that “another” air cylinder is part of the heater driving means
(suggesting that the air cylinder recited in claim 1, is part of
the heater driving means), while claim 1 indicates that an existing
air cylinder is part of the packaging machine (not the heater driving
means).
V. Conclusion
The 35 U.S.C. §102 rejection of claims 1, 4 and 5 as being
anticipated by Fukuda is affirmed.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 19 and 20
under 35 U.S.C. §103 as being unpatentable over Fukuda in view of
Husted is affirmed.
The 35 U.S.C. §103 rejection of claims 3 and 18 as being
unpatentable over Fukuda is reversed.
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007