Appeal No. 97-1005
Application 08/262,993
the operation of the system in Stroup is clearly incremental
or intermittent and not continuous as required in appellant's
claims
on appeal. The examiner concedes as much on page 7 of the
examiner's answer, but then attempts to rationalize why the
intermittent and repetitious feeding arrangement of Stroup may
nonetheless be considered "continuous." The examiner
concludes with regard to Stroup that "while the stock moves
incrementally, it is still being continuously fed" (answer,
page 8). We find no support for such a seemingly anomalous
position in the Stroup patent. Moreover, we find nothing in
Stroup which is responsive to appellant's "means . . . for
continuously feeding tubing along the path at a first speed"
in combination with "cutting nip defining means including
means for moving said blades at the same speed at which tubing
is moving in said path" as set forth in claim 12 on appeal.
Thus, for this reason alone we would reverse the examiner's
rejection of claims 12 through 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103. In
addition, we also share appellant's view (brief, pages 8-11)
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007