Ex Parte Anderson et al - Page 8

                Appeal 2007-0487                                                                                 
                Application 09/759,993                                                                           
                       As for the argued lack of a pivoting ability or pivoting elements for                     
                the framework in Apollonio, as variously asserted in the Brief and Reply                         
                Briefs, we note that representative claim 22 does not require or specify any                     
                particular structure, including pivot members, for mounting the frame and                        
                rolls for use in removing an adhesive film from a substrate.  Rather,                            
                                                                                                                
                which applied force is resisted by the adhesive power of the adhesive                            
                tending to hold the film to the substrate.  This is not unlike how pulling on                    
                an affixed rope results in tension in the rope to the extent that the affixture is               
                capable of resisting the pulling force.  The pulling or peeling force applied to                 
                the film would also act on the substrate through the pulling action on the                       
                adhesive film just like a pulled affixed rope would, in turn, apply a pulling                    
                force that acts on the structure to which the rope is affixed.  In this regard,                  
                we interpret the claimed functional limitation regarding transfer of tension                     
                experienced by the film to a force acting on the substrate via a spaced                          
                support roll as requiring a support roll or rolls that are capable of applying                   
                some force or load to the substrate during a film removal operation using the                    
                winding roll.                                                                                    
                       In the event of further prosecution of this subject matter before the                     
                Examiner in this application or a continuing application, however, the                           
                Examiner should consider whether or not a § 112, first and/or second                             
                paragraph rejection should be introduced with regard to any claims broadly                       
                reciting this claimed transferring tension functionality.  In this regard,                       
                Appellants may wish to  submit a force diagram comparing how all of the                          
                forces act and are distributed for the prior art apparatus during film removal                   
                and for the claimed apparatus by a recognized expert to establish what                           
                apparatus feature of a subcombination of a frame and two rolls, as disclosed                     
                and claimed by Appellants, differs from the applied prior art such that a                        
                tension experienced by a film during peeling is transferred as a                                 
                [compressive] force to the substrate (as opposed to applying a pulling force                     
                on the substrate) when using Appellants’ subcombination frame and rolls,                         
                but not when using the applied prior art subcombination frame and rolls.  In                     
                this regard, it would seem that any dissipation (transfer) of film tension                       
                would appear to result in less film tension, not a conversion of the film                        
                tension to another force, such as a compressive force.  In any event,                            
                representative claim 2 is drawn to an apparatus, not a method of removing a                      
                film.                                                                                            
                                                       8                                                         

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  Next

Last modified: September 9, 2013