Appeal No. 2005-0777
Application No. 10/081,881
prior art as shown in Figures 5-7 and described on pages 1-4 of
the specification (Answer, pages 3 and 4).1 We reverse both
rejections on appeal essentially for the reasons stated in the
Brief, Reply Brief, and those set forth below. In addition, we
enter two new grounds of rejection pursuant to the provisions of
37 CFR § 41.50(b)(effective Sep. 13, 2004; 69 Fed. Reg. 49960
(Aug. 12, 2004); 1286 Off. Gaz. Pat. Office 21 (Sep. 7, 2004)),
as set forth in detail below.
OPINION
A. The Rejections on Appeal
The examiner finds that Hahn teaches a shaft 3 to support a
core roll 25 with films wound around, where the shaft 3 has a
groove 9 on a cylindrical surface along a longitudinal axial
direction with a roller bar 17 set in the groove with both ends
fixed by fittings 27 (Answer, page 3, citing Figures 1-4).
Similarly, the examiner finds that Kataoka discloses a shaft 1 to
support a core roll C with films wound around, where the shaft
1 has a groove 2, 11 on a cylindrical surface along a
1In the interests of judicial economy, we have combined the
two rejections on appeal for discussion purposes since both
rejections involve the same claims, the same statutory basis, the
same secondary reference (the admitted prior art), and rely on
similar teachings from each primary reference (Answer, pages 3-
5).
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007