Appeal No. 95-3922
Application No. 08/123,587
of mechanical "design choice" to situate the journal shafts of
Heitmann outside of the gap defined by the guide rollers.
Even if we agreed with the examiner's obvious design
choice arguments made in the record herein, there is a more
fundamental reason why the rejection of the appealed claims
cannot be sustained. In this regard, Heitmann not only fails
to describe an apparatus for carrying out linear stepwise
strokes crossing a plane of symmetry to adhesively bond and
cut webs to form a splice as claimed, but in fact, Heitmann
discloses and contemplates a web holding and press-on means
which operates in synchronism. See column 8, lines 31-33 of
the reference. Thus, even if one of ordinary skill in the art
would have been led to make the examiner's numerous proposed
modifications of the Heitmann apparatus in light of the relied
upon "secondary references", one would not arrive at an
apparatus as claimed, having the capability of providing
separate stepwise strokes of holding and press-on heads for
crossing a plane of symmetry. As appellant persuasively
argues in his brief at page 39, the synchronism expressly
required by Heitmann for the operation of the press-on heads
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007