Appeal No. 2002-0956
Application 09/182,366
THE REJECTIONS
Claims 1 through 4, 6, 7, 9 through 12, 14 and 15 stand
rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Spengler in view of Mattison, the British reference and the
German reference.
Claim 8 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Spengler in view of Mattison, the British
reference, the German reference and Heynhold.
Attention is directed to the appellants’ main and reply
briefs (Paper Nos. 23 and 26) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 24) for the respective positions of the appellants and the
examiner with regard to the merits of these rejections.
DISCUSSION
Spengler, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses a
cutting apparatus of the sort used to cut blanks from webs of
fabric. The embodiment illustrated in Figure 4, which the
examiner focuses on, comprises a cutting roller 21 having a knife
22, a counter pressure endless band or belt 17 supported by guide
rollers 14 and 15 and a center support roller 18, and feed-in and
discharge conveyors. Spengler teaches that the counter pressure
belt 17 “may be made of a suitable material, such as a plastic
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007