Appeal No. 98-2691
Application No. 08/529,041
or not modified in view of Coleman, does not disclose the
claimed designating means or identifying step. While Croteau
certainly senses the speed of the web (substrate), he does not
identify article lengths along it as appellants do, i.e., by
generating a marker pulse 74 for each article length 36, such
that the nozzle is directed along the selected delivery path
and provides the selected pattern onto each selected article
length, as claimed. Although, as the examiner argues,
Croteau’s sensing wheel 7 is the equivalent of appellants’
encoder in that it senses the speed of the web, there is no
disclosure in the reference that a plurality of selected
article lengths are identified and the pattern is provided
onto each such selected length of the substrate.
Rejection (3)
The additional reference, Pearl, applied in this
rejection does not overcome the deficiencies of the
combination of Croteau and Coleman as discussed above.
Rejection (3) therefore will likewise not be sustained.
Conclusion
The examiner’s decision to reject claims 1 to 23, 25, 27
and 28 is reversed.
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007