Appeal No. 2006-2383
Application 09/025,896
bottom section (20) of Seib’s stoma flange cutter (answer, page 3). That section is
configured to be pressed together with the top section and rotated along with the top
section, if necessary, to cut stoma flange (col. 3, lines 34-45). The examiner has not
established that the applied references would have fairly suggested, to one of ordinary skill
in the art, combining the bottom section of a stoma flange cutter with an ice cream
dispenser to protect a user against being cut by the ice cream dispenser’s beveled edge (2)
(Rothje, page 1, line 53).
Accordingly, we reverse the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Rothje in view of
Seib.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103
over Bell in view of Collins and Snyder,
and over Bell in view of Collins and Seib
Bell (lines 9-16; figure 1) and Collins (col. 1, lines 30-40; col. 2, lines 38-65; figure 1)
both disclose cylindrical vegetable cutters. Collins’ cutter has, as its cutting device, a sharp,
cylindrical beveled cutting edge at one end of the cutter (col. 1, lines 35-36). The examiner
argues that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with Snyder’s
protective cover (40) or the bottom portion (20) of Seib’s stoma flange cutter to prevent
potential harm to the user and to facilitate storage of the device (answer, pages 5-6). The
examiner has not established that the applied references themselves would have fairly
suggested, to one of ordinary skill in the art, using, on a vegetable cutter having a cylindrical
cutting edge, Snyder’s cover for protection against cutting by a blade of a cutter for cutting
circles in materials such as carpeting (col. 4, lines 1-6), or the lower portion of Seib’s stoma
flange cutter that is pressed together with the top section and rotated along with the top
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007