Appeal No. 96-3968
Application No. 08/117,669
Implicit in this rejection is the examiner’s view that the
above noted modifications of Gergely would result in an apparatus
which corresponds to the apparatus recited in claims 1, 2, 9 and
22 and a method which corresponds to the method recited in claims
24 and 26 in all respects.
The appellant's arguments (brief, pp. 12-15) are
unpersuasive for the following reasons. First, Gergely discloses
in Figure 1, a pair of spaced plates (unnumbered) for guiding the
web 18 from tractors 26 to the rollers 10 and 12. These spaced
plates are readable on the claimed guide elements/plates having a
"fixed gap" therebetween. Second, we agree with the examiner
that the appellant has not rebutted the examiner's determination
(answer, p. 8) that the spaced plates of Gergely inherently
prevent the formation of a form bubble. Third, we agree with the
examiner (answer, pp. 12 and 14) that the size of the gap between
the spaced plates of Gergely is a result effective variable since
the size of the gap would have been set according to the actual
thickness of the web being conveyed. Fourth, we agree with the
examiner that an artisan would have interpreted the zigzagged
line above roller 34 in Figures 6 and 7 of Gergely as being a
representation of a spring to bias roller 34 towards roller 36.
9
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007