Appeal No. 2005-0996 Page 5
Application No. 09/848,583
for moving knives for performing the trimming of the margins and a second drive for
driving the stroke device, with the second drive for driving the stroke device being
separate and independent from the drive for the transport device.1 Second, The
examiner has not explained, and it is not apparent to us, why one of ordinary skill in the
field of the appellants’ invention would have been unable, without undue
experimentation, to make a cutting apparatus having a transport device for transporting
product, a stroke device for moving knives for trimming margins of the product and
separate and mutually independent drives for the transport device and for the stroke
device. The movement of the stroke device in any direction and in any manner would
meet the broad limitations of these claims.
For the foregoing reasons, we cannot sustain the examiner’s rejection of claims
1-10, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph. Inasmuch as the examiner’s
rejection of claims 1-10, 12 and 13 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being
indefinite is grounded on the perceived failings of the specification discussed above, we
also cannot sustain this rejection.
1 The 35 U.S.C. § 112 rejections before us in this appeal, as well as the absence of any prior art
rejections, suggest that perhaps the examiner may have interpreted the claims more narrowly than the
claim language requires.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007