Appeal 2007-1364
Application 10/437,576
REJECTION OF CLAIMS 2 AND 8 UNDER 35 U.S.C. §103(A) AS
UNPATENTABLE OVER STOBB AND MOTOOKA
Appellants argue claim 2 separately. Claim 2, which depends from claim 1,
further requires that the cylinder is a folding blade cylinder. Appellants argue that
“the element 25 identified as a folding blade in the final office action is not a cutter
as asserted” (Appeal Br. 10). We disagree. Motooka discloses a folding blade
cylinder 23 which includes a second cutter device 25 (Findings of Fact 14-16). As
such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 8, which depends from claim 7, further requires the cutting element is
covered by a protection and clamping device on both sides. In rejecting claim 8,
the Examiner asserts it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art “to
include the teachings of Motooka in the invention of Stobb in order to perform a
folding operation” (Answer 4). Appellants have not presented any arguments to
the contrary. As such, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 8 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a).
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
We conclude:
1) Appellants have not shown that the Examiner erred in rejecting claims 1,
3, 5, 7, 12, and 15-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Stobb.
2) The Examiner erred in rejecting claims 4, 6, 13, 18, and 19 under 35
U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Stobb.
17
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013