Appeal No. 97-4048
Application 08/371,934
and that similar substantially unsheared pile elements would
also be “adjacent” the two sides of the cut in MacDonald.
Thus, having considered appellants’ arguments and having
given claim 18 its broadest reasonable interpretation
consistent with appellants' specification, we conclude that
the subject matter of claim 18 on appeal is anticipated by
MacDonald. Accordingly, the examiner’s rejection of claim 18
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) as being anticipated by MacDonald is
sustained.
We next review the examiner’s rejection of claim 19 as
being anticipated by Rummer. Rummer discloses a system and
method
(e.g., col. 5, lines 1-24) for cutting a carpet web into
sample pieces, with each of the sample pieces having chamfered
edges so as to avoid unraveling of the nap (col. 1, lines 16-
19). For the reasons advanced by the examiner on pages 8 and
9 of the answer,
we are in agreement that claim 19 on appeal is readable on the
chamfer cutting stroke in Rummer. Accordingly, we incorporate
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007