Appeal No. 95-3879
Application 08/162,920
According to the examiner, the Schott reference teaches the use of rearwardly inclined side rollers
and perpendicular center rollers in a thin tube collapsing frame apparatus for the purpose of ensuring a
properly guided, stabilized tube.
The Rejections
Claims 1 and 2 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Planeta in view
of Noble.
Claims 3 and 4 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Planeta in view
of Noble and Schott.
Opinion
At the outset, we note that on page 3 of the brief, appellant states that the claims do not stand or
fall together but that claim 2 stands or falls with claim 1 and claim 4 stands or falls with claim 3. We have
carefully considered the respective positions advanced by appellant and the examiner. For the following
reasons, we will sustain the examiner's rejection of claims 1 and 2, but reverse the rejection of claims 3 and
4.
According to appellant, the claimed subject matter is an improvement over the collapsing frame
disclosed by Planeta. Appellant discloses that “some tubes collapsed by the frames such as those
described in [Planeta] are not as sufficiently wrinkle free as is desired” (specification: p. 2,
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007