Appeal No. 97-1035 Application 08/217,657 that it is properly aligned with the stock. In applying the Poloni reference to support the § 103 rejections on appeal, the examiner has found (see page 5 in the answer) that Poloni’s conveyor channel 13 meets the limitations in independent claim 7 requiring a two-channel switch having a first channel for receiving and directing the leading and trailing end segments of the rolled stock and a second channel for receiving and directing the main body of the rolled stock, with the two channels being superimposed at least at their upstream ends on a plane perpendicular to the axes of rotation of the blade-holder drums. As Figure 1 of the Poloni reference clearly shows, however, the two sub- channels defined by conveyor channel 13 are “superimposed” at their upstream ends on a plane which is parallel, rather than perpendicular, to the rotation axes of Poloni’s blade-holder drums (knives 14). The alternative rationales advanced by the examiner as to why such structure nonetheless responds to the claim limitations in question (see pages 9 through 11 in the answer) are manifestly unreasonable. This deficiency in Poloni finds no cure in Elsner, Willard and/or Duri. Thus, the prior art evidence relied upon by the examiner 4Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007