Appeal No. 2001-1486
Application No. 09/137,218
spaced apart feet (308) that extend beyond the vertical footprint
of the machine. In addition, the feet have supports (316) for
supporting the holder. The machine is mounted to the stand such
that it can be readily removed from the stand without removing the
holder for the roll of stock material.
The examiner has applied Reichental as the primary reference
in the rejection of this claim. Reichental discloses a machine
(11) for converting sheet stock material into a cushioning product.
Reichental’s arrangement includes a support (14) for supporting the
machine, and a separate and independent mobile supply cart (12) for
supporting a roll (R) of stock material. As set forth in the
abstract, the separate cart (12) and machine (11) may be removably
interconnected for lateral alignment.
In rejecting claim 157, the examiner characterizes
Reichental’s machine as being “vertically oriented” (final
rejection, page 2), which we take as meaning that the examiner
views Reichental as satisfying the claim requirement that the stock
material passes through the machine in an upstream to downstream
direction that is substantially vertical. Although this appears to
us to be debatable, the point is moot in that appellants have not
challenged the examiner’s rejection in this regard. The examiner
states (final rejection, page 2) that Reichental “shows a stand
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007