Appeal No. 96-3968
Application No. 08/117,669
Under the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.196(b), we enter the
following new ground of rejection:
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Gergely in view of Hageman for the reasons set
forth above with respect to the § 103 rejections of claims 1 and
2 based on Gergely and Hageman and the additional reasons set
forth below.
Claim 3 depends on claim 2 (addressed previously) and adds
the limitation that the high speed rolls are spring biased
together. As set forth above, 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 and that, in any
event, Hageman would have suggested the use of spring biased high
speed rollers. Accordingly, it would have been further obvious
to one having ordinary skill in the art to spring bias Gergely's
rollers 34 and 36 together as suggested by Hageman's spring
biased rolls 50 and 48.
Claim 4 depends on claim 1 (addressed previously) and adds
the limitation that the fixed gap is about 0.007 inches. As set
11
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007