Appeal No. 2006-1956
Application No. 09/935,917
1 while Hayamizu processes roll type paper (Reply 3). In light of these
2 differences, Appellant argues that one of skill in the art would not have
3 looked to the disparate system of Hayamizu to modify Moll. Id.
4 We fully appreciate the differences between Moll and Hayamizu. We
5 note, however, that Hayamizu’s X-axis cutter actually cuts a severed sheet,
6 such sheet having first been severed from the roll paper by the Y-axis cutter.
7 Further, Carter evidences that perforators and severing type cutters (slitters)
8 are sufficiently related as to be considered together in the art and further
9 evidences an art-recognized desire to selectively slit or perforate sheets with
10 a minimum of operator involvement, skill or adjustments (col. 1, ll. 11-24).
11 We therefore conclude that the differences between Moll and Hayamizu are
12 not of such a nature that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
13 overlooked or been dissuaded from applying the teachings of one apparatus
14 on the other.
15 It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to
16 modify the Moll perforation apparatus by replacing the manually-set switch
17 system with a programming system of the type taught by Hayamizu wherein
18 bar codes 7 are printed onto the sheets to convey instructions, read by
19 discriminating signal detectors 20, to control the perforator to form a desired
20 pattern of perforations on the sheets. The motivation for the modification is
21 to permit variability in the perforation patterns from one sheet to another
22 with a minimum of operator involvement or adjustments.
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013