Ex parte RING - Page 10




                Appeal No. 96-3968                                                                                                            
                Application No. 08/117,669                                                                                                    


                In any event, we agree with the examiner (answer, p. 14) that                                                                 
                Hageman would have suggested the use of spring biased high speed                                                              
                rollers.4                                                                                                                     


                         For the above reasons, we will sustain the examiner's                                                                
                rejection of claims 1, 2, 9, 22, 24 and 26 under 35 U.S.C.  103                                                              
                as being unpatentable over Gergely in view of Hageman.                                                                        


                         We will not sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 23                                                            
                and 25 under 35 U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Gergely                                                               
                in view of Hageman.  We agree with the appellant's argument                                                                   
                (brief, p. 15) that the recited guide plates are not taught or                                                                
                suggested by the applied prior art.  In that regard, we find that                                                             
                there is no suggestion, absent the appellant's specification, to                                                              
                make the spaced plates of Gergely adjustable as recited in claims                                                             
                23 and 25.  Since the "adjustable" limitation is not taught or                                                                
                suggested by the prior art applied by the examiner, we will not                                                               
                sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 23 and 25 under 35                                                                 
                U.S.C.  103 as being unpatentable over Gergely in view of                                                                    
                Hageman.                                                                                                                      


                         4See Figure 7 where springs 53 urge upper high speed roll                                                            
                50 into engagement with lower high speed roll 48.                                                                             
                                                                     10                                                                       





Page:  Previous  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007