Appeal No. 2006-0541 Παγε 3
Application No. 10/087,613
The examiner has rejected the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103. We note that the
test for obviousness is what the combined teachings of the references would have
suggested to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Young, 927 F.2d 588, 591, 18
USPQ2d 1089, 1091 (Fed. Cir. 1991) and In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 425, 208 USPQ
871, 881 (CCPA 1981).
The appellants' invention includes, as depicted in figures 8 and 9 a first feed
means 140 and a second feed means 142. The second feed means 142 is mounted to
a carrier 160 which moves between an operative position depicted in Figure 8 and an
inoperative position as depicted in Figure 9.
The examiner is of the opinion that Kemptster describes the invention as claimed
(see page 3 of answer) except that Kempster does not describe how the biased
members are mounted. The examiner relies on Steffens for teaching rotating feed
members 34, 48 in pivotal carriers 94, 96 mounted on pivots, biased by biasing
members/springs 80. The examiner finds also that the releasable locking device 90
resiliently hold the feed members/rollers 34, 48 in position in a locked position and when
released/unlocked, it allows for pivoting away in case of a paper jam. The examiner
concludes:
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the
invention was made to mount the rotating members as taught by Steffens
in the invention of Kempster et al. In order to provide biasing towards one
another [answer at page 3].
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007