Appeal No. 2005-0785 Page 6
Application No. 10/192,959
member. Inasmuch as there is no recognition in the modified AAPA of a similar
incentive to provide a circumferentially adjustable slitting blade and thus a
circumferential slot in the backing wheel to accommodate such adjustable blade, we
find no suggestion in Lambert, Garrett or Santanna for the further modification of the
modified AAPA to provide a backing wheel having a circumferential slot into which the
knife blade fits as proposed by the examiner. From our perspective, the only
suggestion to further modify the modified AAPA in the manner proposed by the
examiner to arrive at appellants’ claimed invention is found in 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). It follows that we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of
independent claim 1 or claims 2-4 and 6-8 which depend therefrom.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007