Appeal 2007-1908
Application 10/442,950
1 and then moved, in sequence to a second cutting arrangement. It is asserted
2 (Answer 3) that “[t]here is little doubt that Coburn’s device has multiple
3 blade returning and positioning ‘programs’ stored in his computer memory.
4 Unfortunately, Coburn does not discuss these mundane details, so Miller et
5 al is brought in to flesh them out.” The Examiner adds (Answer 4) that
6 “[w]hether or not the blades are moved in a group or individually is a well
7 known variable, with either option being acceptable, as evidenced by
8 Coburn’s related patent (4,237,761, abstract), Seki (lines 21-23, column 1),
9 Lin [sic] (abstract) and Hirakawa (line 62-68, col 1).”
10 With respect to the Hirakawa, Linn and Seki references, the Examiner
11 contends (Answer 7) that
12 Appellants argue that Hirakawa, Linn and Seki all move their
13 knives as a group instead of individually. This appears to be nothing
14 more than wishful thinking, since all three references explicitly
15 mention the option of moving the blades individually, as set forth
16 above. Appellant further argues that there is no motivation to
17 combine Hirakawa, Linn and Seki with the Coburn references.
18 Examiner points out that Hirakawa, Linn and Seki are merely
19 provided to show that moving the blades individually is ubiquitous
20 in the art.
21
22 We reverse.
23 ISSUE
24 The issue before us is whether the combined teachings and
25 suggestions of Coburn '495, Coburn '761, Miller, Hirakawa, Linn, and Seki
26 would have suggested to an artisan the language of claim 3. The issue turns
27 on whether the prior art would have suggested individually returning the
28 cutting knives to their origin positions and individually moving the knives
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013