Ex Parte Domijan - Page 4

            Appeal 2007-0513                                                                                 
            Application 10/274,797                                                                           

        1          the double seaming roll is moved toward the double seaming chuck prior to                 
        2          performing the double seaming operation . …  Plate 19 remains                             
        3          continuously engaged with the annular projection 13 of the chuck 2 both                   
        4          before and after the double seaming roll is moved toward the double                       
        5          seaming chuck.                                                                            
        6                                                                                                    
        7          The Appellant’s argument is well taken with respect to claim 8 which                      
        8   requires that the second drive mechanism is normally disengaged from the double                  
        9   seaming chuck’s rotational drive means.  The Examiner argues that “the operation                 
       10   of second drive means 16, 19 of Sedwick in just such a manner is clearly detailed                
       11   on page 2, lines 52 to 64 and 84 to 92, of Sedwick” (Answer 5).  Those portions of               
       12   Sedwick indicate that the steel plate normally is disengaged from the seaming rolls,             
       13   but they do not indicate that the steel plate normally is disengaged from the                    
       14   chuck’s rotational drive mechanism.  Sedwick’s chuck and steel plate both are                    
       15   attached to a rotatable spindle (Sedwick 1:91-92; 2:45-47).                                      
       16          The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of                        
       17   anticipation of the invention claimed in the Appellant’s claim 8 or its dependent                
       18   claims 10-12.                                                                                    
       19          The Appellant’s claim 1, however, does not require that the second drive                  
       20   mechanism is normally disengaged from the chuck’s rotational drive mechanism.                    
       21   Claim 1 merely requires that the second drive mechanism is normally disengaged,                  
       22   and becomes engaged as the double seaming roll is moved toward the double                        
       23   seaming chuck to perform a double seaming operation.  Sedwick’s spring plate is                  
       24   normally disengaged from the double seaming rolls, and becomes engaged with the                  
       25   double seaming rolls as they are moved toward the chuck to perform a double                      
       26   seaming operation (Sedwick 2:10-26, 84-88).                                                      
       27          The Appellant argues that Sedwick does not disclose that the spring plate                 
       28   reduces the relative rotational speed between the double seaming roll and a                      

                                                      4                                                      


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013