Appeal No. 2002-1732
Application No. 09/338,238
path extending in the direction of a manufacturing line path, of
a path having a “degree of continuity,” etc. As stated supra, we
are not persuaded by arguments to limitations not appearing in
the claims. Moreover, as we explained supra, Gilbert does
provide for a “reference path,” as broadly claimed, in the line
where the edge of the cloth intersects the common vertical plane.
Thus, absent any convincing arguments by appellants regarding why
these references would not have, or could not have, been combined
in the manner set forth by the examiner, we will sustain the
examiner’s rejections.
With regard to claims 5 and 6, appellants argue that these
claims require that the reference path represents a centerline of
the manufacturing line and that Gilbert, at best, teach sensing
an edge of the web. The examiner’s response is that since the
reference paths of both Gilbert and Toensing would be parallel to
the centerline of the manufacturing line, the reference paths of
these references would also serve as references to the centerline
and that “since the centerline and the reference path are both
fixed and parallel; to know one is to know the other” (answer-
page 6).
We will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6 because
the examiner’s argument is not persuasive of obviousness, within
-10-
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007