Appeal No. 1998-1562 Page 9
Application No. 08/611,416
forth by the examiner (answer, pp. 8-10), it is our view that
when Eichenberger's receiving device 6 pivots from its full
line position (i.e., supporting a lap roll 7 in a reserve
position) shown in Figure 2 to its phantom position shown in
Figure 2, the receiving device 6 does not move towards the
working position (i.e., the position of the lap roll shown on
rolls 32 and 33).
Since all the limitations of independent claim 1, as well
as claims 16 to 18 and 21 dependent thereon, are not disclosed
in Eichenberger for the reason set forth above, the decision
of the examiner to reject claims 1, 16 to 18 and 21 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) as being anticipated by Eichenberger is reversed.
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007