Appeal No. 1998-1020 Page 8
Application No. 08/381,423
of an arrangement as taught by Yamashita in a web width
adjusting device such as the one taught by Barkley, which need
not grip the paper web. Moreover, even if
Barkley and Yamashita were combined as proposed by the
examiner, Yamashita would not have suggested disposing the
counter pressure rollers at a different location along the
travel direction than that of the pressure applying rollers,
as required by the claims.7
Huck discloses a different type of registration device
for use in a multiple stage printing device to solve the same
fanout problem addressed by Barkley. The Huck registration
device comprises rollers (14, 15) disposed on opposite sides
of a moving web, the rollers being moved laterally outward or
inward to control lateral tension in the web without causing
wrinkling of the web (column 10, lines 1-4). The purpose of
the opposing rollers used in Huck is to grip the web to
In making this determination, we interpret "at a second location along7
said paper web traveling direction . . . different than said first location"
as used in the claims on appeal as requiring that the pressure and counter
pressure applying means or steps be offset from one another along the web
traveling direction (i.e., one is located downstream of the other in the
direction of travel of the web). In our opinion, this limitation would not be
met merely by offsetting the pressure and counter pressure applying means or
steps only in a direction transverse to the web traveling direction, as
suggested by the examiner (answer, page 8).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007