Appeal No. 2002-1053 Page 15
Application No. 09/702,981
Our position
We agree with the appellants that the applied prior art does not suggest the
claimed subject matter. In that regard, all the claims under appeal require the
cushioning conversion machine to include a constant-entry device which determines an
entry point of the stock material upstream of the conversion assembly to be biased to
an operating position and movable between the operating position and a tension
yielding position. However, these limitations are not suggested by the applied prior art.
In that regard, while Simmons does teach a cushioning conversion machine having a
constant-entry device (i.e., constant entry roller 128) which determines an entry point of
the stock material upstream of the conversion assembly, Simmons' constant-entry
device is not biased to an operating position and movable between the operating
position and a tension yielding position. Moreover, there is teaching or suggestion in
the applied prior art to have made it obvious at the time the invention was made to a
person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Simmons' constant-entry device (i.e.,
constant entry roller 128) to be biased to an operating position and movable between
the operating position and a tension yielding position. In that regard, while Wood does
teach the use of a spring-biased tensioning roll, there is no rationale in the teachings of
Wood and Simmons to have modified Simmons' constant entry roller 128 to be a
tensioning roll.
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007