Appeal No. 2006-0456 Page 6
Application No. 10/410,778
The examiner's position (answer, page 3) is that “Young does
not teach the first, second, third and fourth rolls which are
configured in a substantially linear formation, the first and
second rolls surfaces which are compressible and the curl
adjuster member connected to the first and second nips to control
the selective penetration of the first and the second roll
compressible surfaces by the third and the fourth rolls.” To
overcome these deficiencies of Young, the examiner turns to
Baruch for a teaching of a sheet decurler having rollers arranged
in a substantially linear formation. The examiner additionally
relies upon Kuo for a teaching of rollers with compressible
surfaces and for a teaching of a curl adjuster for adjusting the
amount of curl induced by the nip.
Appellants' position (brief, page 5) is that the examiner
has not shown four rolls configured in a substantially linear
formation, and that Baruch forms two nips using three rollers.
Appellants submit (brief, page 6) that the examiner has not
identified any suggestion in the references to combine the
various features to arrive at the claimed invention. It is
asserted (brief, page 7) that the examiner has pointed to nothing
in the prior art that would suggest any advantage to adding a
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007