Appeal No. 97-1621
Application 08/073,586
article drawn off the uncoiler.
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Suarez et al. (Suarez) 4,724,733 Feb. 16, 1988
Sato 4,771,621 Sept. 20, 1988
Wallis 4,939,967 Jul. 10, 1990
Stroup, Jr. (Stroup) 5,143,268 Sept. 1, 1992
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as
follows:
a) claims 1, 3, 6 through 13, 15 and 16 as being
unpatentable over Stroup in view of Suarez and Sato; and
b) claims 2, 4 and 14 as being unpatentable over Stroup in
view of Suarez and Sato, and further in view of Wallis.
Stroup discloses an apparatus “for separating flat heat
exchanger tubing into predetermined lengths” (column 1, lines 6
through 8). As described by Stroup,
[t]he apparatus 10 includes a conventional uncoiler
assembly 12, which uncoils the stock upon demand, a
stock feed roller assembly 14, a straightening and
sizing assembly 16, a clamping assembly 18 for
incrementally feeding the stock, a clamping assembly 20
for stabilizing the stock during a scoring and parting
operation, a scoring assembly 22, and a clamping
assembly 24 for parting the stock by impact [column 2,
lines 37 through 45].
Figures 1 and 2 illustrate the manner in which these elements are
arranged.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007