Appeal No. 2006-0456 Page 10
Application No. 10/410,778
end caps 232. It is further disclosed that the pinch shafts can
be moved together up and down with respect to the drive rolls
(col. 7, lines 42-46). It is additionally disclosed that all of
the up and down movements of the end caps 232 are driven by cam
shaft 205 (col. 7, lines 52-56), and that (col. 10, lines 54-57)
the dual decurler mechanism consists of two pairs of drive roll
and pinch shaft and a camming mechanism for controlling their
engagements.
From the disclosure of Kuo that all of the up and down
movements of the end caps, which hold the pinch rollers, are
driven by the cam shaft 205, we agree with appellants that Kuo
does not disclose that the drive roll 304 supports pinch roll
302. To find that the drive roll supports the pinch roll we
would have to resort to speculation, which we decline to do.
From all of the above, we find that although Kuo suggests
providing the decurler of Young with a mechanism for adjusting
the amount of curl induced by a nip and
compressible/substantially uncompressible rolls, we find no
suggestion of making the compressible roll support the
uncompressible roll. Accordingly, we find that even if we
combined the teachings of Young and Kuo, the resultant structure
would fall short of meeting the limitations of independent claim
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007