Appeal No. 2006-0281
Application 10/442,950
over Coburn ‘495 in view of Miller et al.‘301.” In the body of
the rejection (page 3) the examiner asserts that:
Since Applicant has made a critical point of the
knives being moved individually, it is noted that
whether or not the blades are moved in a group or
individually is a well known variable, with either
option being acceptable, as evidenced by Coburn’s
related patent (4,237,761, abstract), Seki ‘933
(lines 21-23, column 1), Lin (abstract) and
Hirakawa (abstract), thus making it all the more
obvious to move the knives individually.
From the examiner’s assertion, we find that the examiner is
relying upon the additional references to show the obviousness of
moving the blades in a group or individually as equivalents of a
well known variable.
In the brief (page 5), appellant lists the rejections of
claims 3-6 as being obvious over Coburn ‘495 in view of Miller,
and additionally discusses Coburn ‘761, which was incorporated by
reference into Coburn ‘495 (col. 5, line 65-68). However, we
find no mention of the Hirakawa, Linn or Seki references in the
brief.
Turning to the examiner’s answer (page 3) the examiner
states “[c]laims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as
obvious over Coburn ‘495 (having Coburn ‘761 incorporated
therein) in view of Miller et al. ‘301, Hirakawa et al. ‘677,
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007