Appeal 2007-1908
Application 10/442,950
1 The prior art relied upon by the Examiner in rejecting the claims on
2 appeal is:
3 Hirakawa US 4,010,677 Mar. 8, 1977
4 Coburn ‘495 US 4,214,495 Jul. 29, 1980
5 Coburn ‘761 US 4,237,761 Dec. 9, 1980
6 Linn US 4,269,097 May 26, 1981
7 Seki US 4,843,933 Jul. 4, 1989
8 Miller US 5,125,301 Jun. 30, 1992
9
10 The Examiner rejected claims 3-6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) (2004) as
11 being unpatentable over Coburn '495, incorporating by reference Coburn
12 '761, in view of Miller, Hirakawa, Linn, and Seki.
13 We begin with independent claim 3. For the reasons, infra, we need
14 not address the contentions regarding claims 4-6. Appellant contends (Br. 7)
15 that
16 [t]he Examiner appears to be relying on the Abstract of Coburn
17 ‘761 that indicates that the heads are moved ‘individually’ or as a
18 group. However, Appellant submits that the mere disclosure of the
19 heads being ‘moveable individually’ (without more) does not teach
20 the specific features of ‘returning the cutting knives individually from
21 respective positions,’ and ‘moving the cutting knives individually
22 from said respective origin positions to respective positions.’ For
23 example, the language ‘movable individually’ in Coburn ‘761 may
24 apply to the moving of the scoring heads as they are initially slid into
25 each other to form a group, which is then pushed together as a whole,
26 as taught by the Coburn ‘761.
27
28 Appellant further contends (id.) that an artisan would not be taught the
29 claimed "origin position" by the "parking position" of Coburn '495.
30 Appellant additionally contends (Br. 8) that “[t]hus, neither Coburn ‘495 nor
31 Coburn ‘761 teaches moving cutting knives individually from an origin
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013