Ex parte STEIDINGER et al. - Page 4

          Appeal No. 1999-0911                                                        
          Application No. 08/852,708                                                  

               It would have been obvious to a person of                              
               ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention                    
               was made to have provided in Appellants’ admitted                      
               prior art that length in the web in a section                          
               between the feed means and the first cylinder is                       
               greater than the direct distance between the                           
               location at which the web leaves the feed means and                    
               the location at which the blade contacts the first                     
               cylinder using support rollers because Steidinger et                   
               al. teach that such a web feed path is well-known                      
               and it is [sic: would have been] obvious to replace                    
               one feed path with an art recognized alternative                       
               feed path used for the same purpose of moving a web                    
               from a feed means to a vacuum cylinder for cutting.                    
               Since the method of Appellants’ admitted prior                         
               art in view of Steidinger et al. is the same as                        
               presently claimed, it is reasonable to suggest that                    
               between the feed means and the cut line there will                     
               be a reduction in tensile stress which will prevent                    
               the tears in the web incident to severing the web to                   
               the same degree as is present in the pending claims,                   
               although this may not be specifically recited.                         

               Although the examiner acknowledges that Steidinger does                
          not indicate a reason for the distance shown between feed                   
          means 20 and the location at which the blade on cylinder 27                 
          contacts cylinder 28 (i.e., contacts web 19) (Answer, page 4),              
          he appears to take the position at page 10 of the Answer that               
          the combination of the APA and Steidinger would inherently                  
          meet the above-quoted last step of claim 52 because                         
          appellants’ specification (at pages 10 and 11)                              


Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007