Ex Parte Domijan - Page 5

            Appeal 2007-0513                                                                                 
            Application 10/274,797                                                                           

        1   workpiece when the double seaming roll comes into contact with the workpiece                     
        2   during the double seaming operation (Br. 8-9).  The Appellant argues that                        
        3   Sedwick’s double seaming roll surface speed variation is merely a natural                        
        4   byproduct of the operation of Sedwick’s device, and that Sedwick has no interest                 
        5   in reducing the relative rotational speed between the double seaming rolls and the               
        6   workpiece (Br. 9).  Sedwick’s disclosure that the seaming rolls are driven at the                
        7   proper speed by the steel plate to avoid slippage between the seaming rolls and the              
        8   metal parts (Sedwick 2:52-61, 99-104) is a disclosure that the relative rotational               
        9   speed between the double seaming rolls and the metal workpiece is reduced as the                 
       10   double seaming rolls are brought into contact with the workpiece, as required by                 
       11   the Appellant’s claim 1.                                                                         
       12          The Appellant argues that Sedwick does not disclose the limitations in                    
       13   claims 3, 4, and 7 that depend from claim 1 (Br. 10-11).  Sedwick’s steel plate                  
       14   engages the double seaming chuck by being clamped thereto and rotates the double                 
       15   seaming rolls (Sedwick 2:43-45, 58-61) as required by the Appellant’s claim 3.                   
       16   That clamping engagement is frictional as required by the Appellant’s claim 4.  As               
       17   for claim 7, Sedwick’s avoidance of slippage between the double seaming rolls and                
       18   the metal parts (Sedwick 2:99-104) substantially eliminates relative rotational                  
       19   speed between the double seaming roll and the workpiece during the double                        
       20   seaming operation.                                                                               
       21          We therefore are not convinced of reversible error in the rejection of                    
       22   claims 1, 3, 4 and 7.                                                                            
       23          The Appellant’s claim 5 requires that the second drive mechanism comprises                
       24   a first frictional drive element mounted to rotate with the double seaming chuck                 
       25   and a second frictional drive element mounted to rotate with the double seaming                  
       26   roll.  The Examiner argues that “the elements 16, 19 of the Sedwick second drive                 

                                                      5                                                      


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

Last modified: September 9, 2013