Appeal No. 2006-0722 4
Application No. 09/971,469
modification of Anderson urged by the examiner. As noted in the
reply brief, the examiner’s observation in the answer (pages 3-4)
that Anderson’s apparatus is “capable of cutting both sheets and
would do so if the adjustable slot cutters were not properly
aligned with the pre-cut slots in the carton sheets” amounts to
nothing more than an allegation that Anderson could perform the
function recited in appellants’ method claims.
Nor do we find any meaningful information on pages 6 and 7
of the answer to support the examiner’s conclusion of
obviousness, or which reasonably provides response to appellants’
arguments. The examiner’s use of “canned” form paragraphs citing
platitudes like those on pages 6 and 7 of the answer are no
substitute for a reasoned analysis of the facts and of the
teachings or suggestions to be fairly derived from the applied
references by one of ordinary skill in the art which would have
led to the particular modification of Anderson urged by the
examiner.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007