Appeal 2006-2985
Application 10/702,225
The following rejections are before us for review.
1. 1, 3, and 5-7 stand rejected under 35 USC § 102(b) as being anticipated by
Fuss.
2. Claims 6 and 7 stand rejected, in the alternative, under 35 USC § 103(a) as
being unpatentable over Fuss.
3. Claims 4, 8, 9, and 23 stand rejected under 35 USC § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Fuss in view of Cruz or Wischusen.
ISSUE
The Appellants contend that claims 1, 3, and 5-7 are not anticipated by Fuss,
because Fuss discloses only a converter to convert a sheet of stock material into a
strip of relatively less dense dunnage, and Fuss does not disclose the claimed
positioning device or the claimed stapler that act on one or more strips of relatively
less dense dunnage provided from the converter (Brief 7). The Appellants further
contend that claims 4, 8, 9, and 23 are not obvious in view of the combined
teachings of Fuss and Cruz or Wischusen, because neither Cruz nor Wischusen
cures the deficiencies of Fuss (Brief 8-9).
The Examiner contends that the sheet stock material of Fuss is construed as
“dunnage” before and after the stapling procedure, and as such, Fuss shows a
dunnage supply having an outlet through which one or more strips of “dunnage”
are supplied and formed at a station 102, wherein the strips may be bent, curled,
folded, curved, and the like, so that one portion of the strip will be brought into
contact with another part and attached together, such as by stapling (Answer 3, 6).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013