Appeal No. 97-1365
Application 08/295,
Appellant, in his Brief, states that the claims do not stand or fall together and
includes reasons and arguments therefor in his Brief.
The examiner has rejected claims 1 through 6 as rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103
as unpatentable over Imai in view of Nordlof. According to the examiner, Imai discloses
a stationary frame structure, a first feed roll 11 mounted on the first roll axis, a roll
carrier means 18, a second feed roll 13 mounted on the roll carrier means 18, and
pressure applying means 20 yieldably urging roll carrier means 18. The examiner
further states that the roll carrier includes an elongated ram position sensor means 39
with a first cam means and a second cam means which includes cam follower 37
engageable with the cam surface on member 39. The examiner states that Imai does
not disclose an electro-responsive servomotor means and does not disclose a sensor
activating means mounted on the ram. However, it is the view of the examiner that
Nordlof teaches using an electro-responsive servomotor means and a sensor actuating
means 102a that is mounted on ram 11 for reciprocation with the ram 11 into and out of
engagement with the upwardly facing abutment on the ram position sensor means 101.
Therefore, the examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to have modified
the roll type stock feed apparatus of Imai with an electro-responsive servomotor means
and sensor actuating means as taught by Nordlof in order to drive the stock feed rolls
during the feed cycle while sensing the position of the ram.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007