Appeal No. 2005-1293 4
Application No. 09/453,480
strip (88) behind the cutting blade unit when the moving blade unit is in its extended
position (application drawings, Fig. 5).
In rejecting claims 4, 6, 7, 11 and 13 through 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Simmons in view of Huston or Wilhelm, the examiner has
found that Simmons shows a moving blade unit with a shutter means (73) that moves
with the blade (72) to block the strip path in an extended position. The examiner points
to Figure 5B2 of Simmons in support of that proposition and urges that this figure shows
shutter means (73) which “prevents movement of a cut end from moving behind moving
blade 72 since the cut end is under moving blade 72 as shown in figure 5B2" (answer,
page 3). The examiner contends that the only feature missing in Simmons is that it
does not show the shutter means (73) being flush with the blade as required in the
claims on appeal. It is for this missing aspect of the claimed subject matter that the
examiner turns to Huston and Wilhelm, contending that it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide Simmons with
cutting means as taught by Huston or Wilhelm to make sure nothing interferes with the
cutting blade.
Like appellants, we note that the examiner has provided no reasonable
suggestion or motivation for attempting to modify the cushioning conversion machine of
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007