Appeal No. 95-3879
Application 08/162,920
lines 8-11). To solve this problem, appellant provides means for the rollers to move the tube at an
outwardly inclined angle to the direction of movement of the tube. Appellant discloses three embodiments
to accomplish this result. In the first embodiment, each of the rollers has a raised helically contoured
surface which tends to move the tube outwardly (claim 2). In the second embodiment, the rollers to the
left and right side of the longitudinal center line of the frame are mounted on axles which are substantially
transverse to, but rearwardly inclined to the direction of travel of the tube (claim 3). In the third
embodiment, only the rollers at the end of the axles extend rearwardly inclined to the direction of movement
of the tube (claim 4).
Noble discloses a pair of “scrolled rollers” on opposite sides of the tubular member to assist in
collapsing the tube (Fig. 1, reference numerals 21 and 22). Noble defines “scrolled rollers” as meaning
“rollers bearing on their curved surfaces a tracery of broken or unbroken spiral grooves or ridges” and that
“[n]ormally the spiral grooves or ridges have their origin at or near a point on the curved surface situated
at equal distances from the ends of the roll, and proceed in opposite directions outwards to the ends
thereof” (p. 3 and see Fig. 3). Both Planeta’s and Noble’s rollers are undriven and freely rotate about their
axes. Noble discloses that “resistance to the lateral movement of the tube across the guide rollers in the
course of the collapsing operation was reduced, ... the risk of creasing thin-walled tubes ... was reduced
or eliminated” (pp. 4-5). From these teachings, we conclude that a person having ordinary skill in the art
would have been motivated to modify the rollers on Planeta’s collapsing frame such that each of the rollers
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007