Appeal No. 2001-1486
Application No. 09/137,218
from the appellants’ own disclosure. This constitutes a first
reason necessitating reversal.
In addition, we do not agree with the examiner that Reid
teaches legs that are readily removable from the stand and machine,
as called for in claims 135 and 147. In this regard, the
examiner’s determination that Reid’s legs are readily removable
from the remainder of the stand based on what appears to the
examiner to be bolts in Reid’s drawings is, at best, speculative.
For all Reid’s drawings show, the legs may just as well be riveted
or welded to the stand. This constitutes a second reason
necessitating reversal.
Furthermore, claims 135 and 147 call for the readily removable
feet to include the supports for supporting the ends of the holder
for a roll of stock material, such that the stand is readily
removable from the feet without removing the stock roll holder from
the supports. Thus, in making Johnson’s feet removable from the
stand, it would be necessary to locate the joint or connection for
the legs above Johnson’s brackets (24) in order to satisfy this
claim limitation. The examiner has not explained, and it is not
apparent to us, where the applied prior art teaches or suggests
this particular way of making Johnson’s feet removable. This
constitutes a third and final reason necessitating reversal.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007