Appeal No. 2005-2210 Παγε 8
Application No. 09/996,974
Breen and Rauh and claims 8 and 9 as being unpatentable over Swain in view of Van
Breen and Schiltz also cannot be sustained.
We turn our attention now to the examiner’s rejections of claims 11-16, each of
which is based, at least in part, on the combination of Read in view of Swain. Read
discloses a coil handling device comprising a jaw mechanism 12, for gripping the reel
14, comprising a cylindrical housing 30 having jaw levers 44, 44A provided with feet 45,
45A which are selectively moved between the insertion and release position shown in
Figure 6, with the feet 45 withdrawn into the cylinder, and the position shown in Figure
5, with the feet extended outwardly from the cylinder to engage the flange 15 of the reel
14. The movement of the jaw levers is accomplished by movement of the handle 67
which in turn moves the cam shaft 63 to move the yoke cam plate 50, the cam plate 50
being provided with inclined cam orifices 53, 54 which engage cam pins 57, 58 to which
the jaw levers 44, 44A are fastened. Read lacks a moving mechanism for moving a roll
along the roll retainer shaft, much less one which is operable to be actuated by a
rotating action of a driving mechanism associated with a roll loading shaft toward which
said roll is moved, as called for in claim 11.
As discussed above, Swain broadly teaches moving cylindrical substrates
between loading mandrel 110 and mandrel assembly 10, but is silent with respect to
how such movement is to be accomplished. Thus, even assuming one of ordinary skill
in the art would have been inclined to provide a moving means for moving a roll along
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007