Appeal No. 1998-1562 Page 18
Application No. 08/611,416
much higher position above the working position so that
Eichenberger's receiving device 6 must pivot a greater
distance to release the lap roll as suggested and taught by
Johannsson.
For the reasons stated above, the decision of the
examiner to reject claims 2 to 4 and 8 under 35 U.S.C. § 103
is affirmed.
As to claims 5 and 6, the appellants argue (brief, pp.
14-15) that the recited "blocking element for selectively
blocking movement of said arms towards said working position"
is not taught or suggested by the applied prior art (i.e.,
Eichenberger and Johannsson). We agree.
The examiner (answer, p. 6) states that the blocking
element "is inherent in the moving means of Johannsson since
the moving means is stopped at the requisite positions." We
do not agree. While the apparatus of Johannsson may
inherently have some means for stopping Johannsson's moving
means at the requisite positions, this does not equate to a
Page: Previous 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007