Appeal No. 98-1184
Application 08/593,670
zone. 2
The references relied upon by the examiner as evidence of
obviousness are:
Sack 4,055,033 Oct. 25, 1977
Dischler 4,918,795 Apr. 24, 1990
Claims 1 through 8 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. §
103(a) as being unpatentable over Dischler in view of Sack.
Reference is made to the appellant's brief (Paper No. 8)
and to the examiner's final rejection and answer (Paper Nos. 5
and 9) for the respective positions of the appellant and the
examiner with regard to the merits of this rejection. On page
3 in the brief under the "GROUPING OF CLAIMS" heading, the
appellant states that "Claims 1 and 3-6 stand or fall together
and separately from claim 2. Claims 7 and 8 stand or fall
2The recitation in claim 7 of the step of supplying the
web to the treatment zone at a tension of about 1 and 5 pounds
force per linear inch of web width is inconsistent with the
underlying specification (see page 7) and does not make sense.
We have interpreted this recitation consistently with the
specification (and with the similar recitation in claim 1) to
require that the web be supplied to the treatment zone at a
tension of between about 1 and 5 pounds force per linear inch
of web width. This informality in claim 7 is deserving of
correction in the event of further prosecution before the
examiner.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007