Appeal No. 2005-1293 3
Application No. 09/453,480
Our evaluation of the obviousness issues raised in this appeal has included a
careful assessment of appellants’ specification and claims, the applied prior art
references, and the respective positions advanced by appellants and the examiner. As
a consequence of our review, we have made the determination that the evidence relied
upon by the examiner is not sufficient to support a conclusion of obviousness under
35 U.S.C. § 103 with respect to appellants’ claims 4, 6, 7, 11 and 13 through 15 on
appeal. Our reasoning for this determination follows.
As noted in the present specification (pages 3 and 11-12), one of the problems
identified by appellants in prior art cushioning conversion machines, e.g., like that seen
in Simmons, is that the cut end of the continuous dunnage strip (S) remaining in the
machine may interfere with the return stroke of the moving blade unit (72, 73) by moving
“behind” the cutting blade unit after it has reached its extended position and completed
its cutting stroke (i.e., the position seen in Fig. 4 of Simmons) and thereby potentially
cause a machine jam. Appellants note that such movement of the cut end of the
dunnage strip can occur due to the nature of the dunnage strip (i.e., by relaxation and
extension of the crumpled strip along its longitudinal axis). Appellants’ solution to this
problem is to provide a shutter (85) carried by the moving cutting blade (e.g., as shown
in Figs. 4-7 of the present application) which is sized and positioned so as to
substantially block the strip path and prevent movement of the cut end of the dunnage
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007