Appeal No. 2006-1343 7
Application No. 10/121,530
After considering the teachings to be fairly derived from
Mack, Landgren and Müller by one of ordinary skill in the art, we
find that we are in agreement with appellant’s assessment that
neither Landgren nor Müller provide any teaching, suggestion or
incentive for modifying the particular sheet transport and stacking
system found in Mack to use a conveyor device like that in Landgren
or a transfer device like that in Müller. Mack utilizes a chain-
conveyor and continuous floatation-guiding arrangement (6) along
with a diverter and specialized air conveying/braking arrangement
to move a printed product from the delivery end of a printing
machine or printed product processing machine (at 45) to selective
stacking levels (10, 11) of a stacking apparatus (40) “while
avoiding moving parts, such as gripper bars” (col. 2, lines 26-28)
and also ensuring that the printed products arrive via smear- and
scratch-free delivery on the particular selected stack level (col.
3, lines 19-23). Those aspects of Mack and the significance placed
thereon in the disclosure of that patent belie the examiner’s
rationale for the proposed combinations as set forth in the final
rejection and answer, and lead us to conclude that the examiner is
utilizing impermissible hindsight to selectively pick and choose
among the prior art references and appellant’s own specification as
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007