Appeal No. 2006-2116
Application No. 08/879,517
successfully eliminating a problem well recognized in the art of
desk-top cutting machines.
Accordingly, we affirm the examiner’s rejections of:
Claims 1-3, 26, 27, 37, 48-56 and 58-62 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable for obviousness in view of “Prior
Art” Figure 6, “Prior Art” Figure 7, and the “Description of the
Prior Art” at column 1, lines 11-33, in Appellant’s own U.S.
Patent 5,425,294; and the prior art disclosures of Johnson, U.S.
Patent 4,574,670, issued March 11, 1986; Langworthy, U.S.
10 1,417,669, issued May 30, 1922; and Ambrosio, U.S. Patent
3,013,592, issued December 19, 1961; and
Claims 1-3, 26, 27, 37, 48-56 and 58-62 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable for obviousness in view of the
combined teachings of Ito, U.S. Patent 5,357,834, which issued
October 25, 1994, from U.S. Application 08/063,289, filed May 18,
1993, Johnson, Langworthy, and Ambrosio.
We dismiss the rejection of Claims 1-3, 26, 27, 37, 48-56 and
58-62 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable for
obviousness in view of the combined teachings of Bergler, U.S.
20 Patent 4,531,441, issued July 30, 1985, Ito, Johnson, Haffner,
23
Page: Previous 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007