Appeal 2007-1908
Application 10/442,950
1 position respectively to a cutting position, and moving the cutting knives
2 individually from the cutting position to the origin position, as in claim 3.”
3 With regard to Miller, Appellant contends (id.) that Miller does not
4 make up for the deficiencies of the Coburn references. Turning to the
5 Hirakawa, Linn, and Seki references, Appellant contends that these
6 references move their respective elements in a manner similar to Coburn
7 '495. It is argued (Br. 9) that each of Hirakawa, Linn, and Seki move their
8 heads as a group, which precludes a teaching or suggestion of “returning the
9 cutting knives individually from respective positions,” and “ moving the
10 cutting knives individually from said respective origin positions to
11 respective positions.” In the Reply Brief (p. 6) Appellant additionally
12 contends that “there is no disclosure in either of Coburn ‘761, Hirakawa, nor
13 the additional references regarding whether the word ‘individually’ is used
14 in regard to returning the cutting knives, moving the cutting knives
15 individually from said perspective origin positions, or whether it pertains to
16 some other movement. There simply is not enough disclosure for one to
17 presume what is intended to be meant by the mere word ‘individually,’ as
18 sparingly used in the references.” Appellant additionally contends (Reply
19 Br. 7) that “the Examiner acknowledges that the applied references really do
20 not explain what they specifically mean by ‘individually.’ The obviousness
21 rejection is not properly supported based on the word ‘individually’ alone.
22 Claim 3 clearly includes more features than just the operation of moving an
23 individual blade.”
24 The Examiner contends (Answer 3) that in Coburn '495, the cutting
25 knives are moved from a cutting arrangement to an origin or park position,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013