Appeal 2007-0513
Application 10/274,797
1 mechanism are clearly engaged by friction due to the yieldable nature of the spring
2 plate 19” (Answer 3). The Appellant’s claim 1, from which claim 5 indirectly
3 depends, requires that the second drive mechanism is normally disengaged. If, as
4 argued by the Examiner, the second drive mechanism includes Sedwick’s seaming
5 roll projection 16, the second drive mechanism cannot be normally disengaged
6 from the seaming roll. The Examiner has not established that there is anything else
7 from which seaming roll projection 16 and steel plate 19 are normally disengaged
8 but become engaged as the double seaming roll is moved toward the double
9 seaming chuck to perform a double seaming operation as required by the
10 Appellant’s claim 1.
11 The Examiner, therefore, has not established a prima facie case of
12 anticipation of the invention claimed in the Appellant’s claim 5.
13
14 Rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103
15 The Appellant’s independent claim 17 requires a second drive mechanism
16 comprising a first elastomeric frictional drive element mounted to rotate with a
17 double seaming chuck, and a second elastomeric frictional drive element mounted
18 to rotate with a double seaming roll, the first and second drive elements being
19 oriented and configured to engage each other as the double seaming roll is moved
20 toward the double seaming chuck prior to a double seaming operation. The
21 Appellant’s independent claim 21 requires a second drive mechanism comprising a
22 plurality of o-rings.
23 Currie discloses a rotatable seaming chuck that prevents skidding of a
24 beaded can end relative to the seaming chuck during a seaming operation
25 (Currie 1:11-17). The skidding is prevented by a resilient friction ring (68),
26 preferably a commercially available o-ring of the type that easily can be replaced at
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: September 9, 2013