Appeal No. 1998-1020 Page 9
Application No. 08/381,423
stretch or compress it laterally as needed. As such gripping
is not required in the Barkley bustling device, it is not
apparent to us why one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been motivated to provide counter pressure rollers on the side
of the web opposite the bustling wheels and rollers of
Barkley. Further, even if the teachings of Barkley and Huck
were combined as proposed by the examiner to provide counter
pressure applying rollers on the Barkley device, Huck would
not have suggested providing such counter pressure applying
rollers at a different location along the web traveling
direction as required by the claims.
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find the references
applied by the examiner sufficient to have suggested the
subject matter of claims 2, 6 and 24. Accordingly, we shall
not sustain the examiner's rejection of these claims.
As to the examiner's rejection of claim 21, we have
reviewed the additional teachings of Fischer, but we find
nothing therein which overcomes the deficiencies of the
combination of Barkley, Okamura, Miyoshi, Huck and Yamashita
discussed above. Thus, it follows that we shall also not
sustain the examiner's rejection of claim 21.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007