Appeal No. 2004-2315
Application No. 09/348,155
In this instance, assuming for the sake of argument that a
person of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to
replace the brush guide 81 of Rahe with an alternative device for
minimizing whipping around of the trailing ends of the signatures
as they emerge from between the cylinders 27 and 29, it is not
apparent to use why the ordinarily skilled artisan would have
looked to Carricato, where the sheets are being handled in a
different manner for a different end purpose. In our view, the
only suggestion for modifying Rahe in the manner proposed to meet
the above-noted trailing edge gripper limitation stems from the
luxury of hindsight accorded one who first viewed the appellants’
disclosure. This, of course, is not a proper basis for a
rejection. See In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1266, 23 USPQ2d
1780, 1784 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
The above noted deficiency in the basic combination of Rahe
and Carricato is not cured by Curley, which is relied upon by the
examiner solely for its teaching of providing a deceleration
device that comprises a series of arms with grippers at the ends
thereof to slow down signatures as they are released to a
delivery stream.
10
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007