Appeal No. 2005-1109
Application No. 09/781,733
The references of record relied upon as evidence of obviousness are:
McLean 5322586 June 21, 1994
Ratzel 5571067 Nov. 5, 1996
The Rejections
Claims 6-11, 13, 15-24 and 27-32 stand rejected under 35 USC § 102 as
anticipated by Ratzel.
Claims 12, 14, 25-26 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103 as unpatentable
over Ratzel in view of McLean.
For a full explanation of the examiner’s rejection, reference is made to the
examiner’s answer. For a further understanding of appellant’s response thereto,
reference is made to the brief and the reply brief.
Opinion
We have carefully reviewed the claimed subject matter in light of the prior
art and the arguments of the appellant and the examiner. As a result of this
review, we have reached the conclusion that the applied prior art does not
establish that the claims of appellant lack novelty under section 102 or are prima
facie obvious under section 103. Our reasons follow.
The disclosure of Ratzel is directed to a method for making cushioning
material out of linear stock. In order to make the stock of the correct length
several methods are disclosed including a manual method, a time repeat
method, a removal trigger method, and a length selection method. An automatic
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007