Appeal No. 2005-0879
Application No. 09/822,136
edge angle of approximately 68 degrees and Jahn’s drawings show a
cutting edge angle of approximately 60 degrees, both of which
fall outside the range specified in the claims. These references
also are devoid of any evidentiary support for the examiner’s
conjecture that it would have been obvious to provide Mathein’s
rotary disk cutter L or Jahn’s circular cutter wheel 16 with a
cutting edge angle “that is not less than forty degrees and not
greater than fifty degrees” as recited in independent claims 1,
13, 25 and 28 based on the size, material, speed, durability
and/or intended use of these components.
Thus, neither Mathein nor Jahn justifies a conclusion that
the differences between the subject matter recited in independent
claims 1, 13, 25 and 28, and dependent claims 4 through 6, 26,
27, 29 and 30, and the prior art are such that the subject matter
as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was
made to a person having ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly,
we shall not sustain the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1, 4 through 6, 13 and 25 through 30 as being unpatentable
over Mathein or the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of
claims 1, 4 through 6, 13 and 25 through 30 as being unpatentable
over Jahn.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007