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