Appeal No. 1998-1562 Page 13
Application No. 08/611,416
The appellants have grouped claims 1 and 2 as standing or
falling together. Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR7
§ 1.192(c)(7), claim 2 falls with claim 1. Thus, it follows
that the decision of the examiner to reject claim 2 under 35
U.S.C.
§ 102(b) is also affirmed.
Turning next to claim 21, we agree with the appellants'
argument (brief, p. 13) that claim 21 is not anticipated by
Johannsson. In that regard, we agree with the appellants that
the limitation "said reserve position is spaced from said
working position a distance which would permit a reserve lap
roll in said reserve position to overlap with a full lap [8]
roll in said working position" is not disclosed by Johannsson.
Specifically, the presence of Johannsson's flap 24 as shown in
7See page 6 of the appellants' brief.
8The term "overlap" as used in claim 21 does not mean
that the reserve lap roll physically overlaps the working lap
roll but instead means that the virtual position of a full
reserve lap roll would overlap the virtual position of a full
working lap roll as set forth on page 22, lines 15-22, of the
specification.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007