Appeal No. 1997-3264
Application 08/501,769
Rejection over Valimont in view of Bungay
The examiner rejects claims 1-6 over Valimont in view of
Bungay. The examiner’s argument in support of this rejection,
however, is directed only toward the limitation in dependent
claim 5 regarding rotating a platen. The examiner does not
explain why Bungay remedies the deficiency in Valimont
discussed above regarding the tensioning limitation in
appellants’ sole independent claim. Consequently, the
examiner has not established a prima facie case of obviousness
over these references.
Rejection over JP ‘217 in view of Valimont
In the examiner’s discussion of the rejection over JP
‘217 in view of Valimont, the examiner does not mention the
tensioning requirement in appellants’ independent claim or
respond to appellants’ argument (answer, page 10) that this
tensioning feature is not disclosed or suggested in JP ‘217
and Valimont. The examiner, therefore, has not established a
prima facie case of obviousness over these references.
DECISION
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007