Appeal No. 2006-1403
Application No. 10/011,665
inventions share the same function as Appellants’ disclosed
invention. Specifically, the Examiner states: “Both are tasked
with longitudinally cutting a plastic ribbon that has
longitudinal elements embedded therein and must make these cuts
without cutting the longitudinal elements.” (Examiner’s Answer,
page 6). Additionally, we find that Teed’s and Appellants’
disclosed inventions are structurally similar in that both have
cutting mechanisms for receiving and severing longitudinally
embedded elements from a shared matrix material such that the
longitudinal elements are not damaged by the severing mechanism.
Thus, the Examiner’s field of endeavor determination is
supported by the similarity of structure and function between
Teed’s and Appellants’ cutting tool and by Appellants’
specification disclosure that indicates a broad field of
endeavor is intended. It is our ultimate finding, therefore,
that Teed is in the same field of endeavor as Appellants’
disclosed and claimed invention, namely, the longitudinal
cutting tool art.
Though unnecessary because Teed is in Appellants’ field of
endeavor, nevertheless, we additionally find that Teed is
directed to solving the same problem as Appellants. As aptly
stated by the Examiner, “both Teed and Lochkovic face the same
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007