Appeal 2007-1364
Application 10/437,576
11). Although, this is not the embodiment illustrated in Figure 12 of Stobb, it
provides evidence that Stobb’s system could be modified as suggested.
Accordingly, we find the Appellants’ conclusory statement regarding what Stobb
appears to teach unpersuasive. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of
claims 9 and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Appellants argue claim 10 separately. Claim 10, which depends from claim
9, further requires that the cylinder includes a leading-edge gripping device.
Appellants argue that there is no motivation to modify the teachings of Stobb to
include a leading-edge gripping device because “the fan 88 delivers the severed
sections” (Appeal Br. 10). In rejecting claim 10, the Examiner asserts that it would
have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the speed of the rotating
elements in order to create spacing between products (Answer 5). However, the
Examiner fails to address the claimed leading-edge gripping device. Therefore, the
Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obvious regarding the limitations
of claim 10. As such, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 10.
Claim 14, which depends from claim 12, further requires that the further
rotating band-shaped conveying element has a length at least twice as long as the
length of the rotating band-shaped conveying element. In rejecting claim 12, the
Examiner asserts that “it would have been an obvious matter of design choice…to
increase the length of the further conveying device” (Answer 4). Appellants have
not presented any arguments to the contrary. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s
rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
16
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013