Appeal No. 96-1678
Application 08/322,731
(c) claim 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Röder in view of Scheuter and Salmela, and further in view
of Voss;
(d) claim 26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable
over Röder in view of Scheuter and Salmela, and further in view
of Sackenreuter.
The rejections are explained in the examiner’s answer (Paper
No. 29) and the supplemental examiner’s answer (Paper No. 35).
The opposing viewpoints of appellants are set forth in the
main brief (Paper No. 27) and the reply brief (Paper No. 33).
The 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, rejection
The examiner’s § 112 rejection is founded upon three alleged
deficiencies in independent claim 19. Specifically, the examiner
considers that (1) claim 19, lines 32-36 (“said guide means being
spaced axially from said longitudinal ends of said upper wedge-
shaped gap . . .”) is inaccurate because the opposite is true,
i.e., the sealing elements are axially spaced from the gap, (2)
claim 19, lines 17-18 (“to enable insertion of a cutter for said
web through said lower wedge-shaped gap”) is a statement of
intended use, and (3) the word “transverse” in claim 19, line 37-
38 (“means mounting said sealing elements for displacement
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007