Appeal No. 95-3922
Application No. 08/123,587
Claims 23-26 and 29-41 stand rejected for obviousness
(35 U.S.C. § 103) over Heitmann in view of Wommer, Shigeta,
and Bianchetto. Claim 28 stands rejected under the same
section of the statute and the same references above further
in view of Martin.
We reverse.
As evidence of obviousness of the claimed subject matter
on appeal, the examiner principally relies on Heitmann which
describes an apparatus for joining ends of webs together.
After pointing out the similarities between Heitmann's
apparatus and the claimed apparatus (generally see the Answer
at page 3), the examiner acknowledges that Heitmann fails to
meet the terms of the claim to the apparatus in a number of
particulars. Thus, the examiner states at page 4, the Answer
that:
Although the journal shafts of Heitmann are
located within the gap between the guide
rollers, it would have been a mechanical
design choice to laterally separate them
such that they were situated outside of the
gap between the guide rollers [emphasis
added].
In appellant's Specification at page 4, line 21 through
page 5, line 8 it is indicated that the press-on heads of
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007