Appeal No. 97-1035
Application 08/217,657
that it is properly aligned with the stock.
In applying the Poloni reference to support the § 103
rejections on appeal, the examiner has found (see page 5 in
the answer) that Poloni’s conveyor channel 13 meets the
limitations in independent claim 7 requiring a two-channel
switch having a first channel for receiving and directing the
leading and trailing end segments of the rolled stock and a
second channel for receiving and directing the main body of
the rolled stock, with the two channels being superimposed at
least at their upstream ends on a plane perpendicular to the
axes of rotation of the blade-holder drums. As Figure 1 of
the Poloni reference clearly shows, however, the two sub-
channels defined by conveyor channel 13 are “superimposed” at
their upstream ends on a plane which is parallel, rather than
perpendicular, to the rotation axes of Poloni’s blade-holder
drums (knives 14). The alternative rationales advanced by the
examiner as to why such structure nonetheless responds to the
claim limitations in question (see pages 9 through 11 in the
answer) are manifestly unreasonable. This deficiency in
Poloni finds no cure in Elsner, Willard and/or Duri.
Thus, the prior art evidence relied upon by the examiner
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007