Appeal No. 95-4375
Application 08/153,491
Subsequent to the final rejection, the examiner has reconsidered
his position and withdrawn the rejections of claims 21-24 (answer
(Paper No. 31), page 5), claims 31, 33 and 34 (answer, page 6),
and claims 20 and 28 (supplemental answer, page 1). 3
Accordingly, only the rejections of claims 18, 19, 25, 29, 30,
32, 35 and 36 remain before us for review.
Appellant’s invention pertains to an apparatus for (claims
18, 19 and 35) and a method of (claims 25, 29, 30, 32 and 36)
producing, from a substantially continuous web of paper, a paper
product comprising a plurality of sequentially folded strips of
paper. An understanding of the invention can be derived from a
reading of exemplary apparatus claim 18 and exemplary method
claim 25, copies of which appear in the appendix to appellant’s
main brief.
In rejecting the claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103, the examiner
relied upon the references listed below:
entered (see the supplemental examiner’s answer (Paper No. 34)),
this amendment has not yet been clerically entered. This manner
should be corrected upon return of the present application to the
examiner.
3Although not expressly stated, it is presumed that these
claims are now considered by the examiner to be directed to
allowable subject matter in that they are no longer subject to
any grounds of rejection.
-2-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007