Appeal No. 1999-2132 Page 12
Application No. 08/672,856
Next, we will consider the standing 35 U.S.C. § 103
rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 10, 12, 13, 20 and 21
based on Tekavec in view of Reichental. Reichental, like
appellants, discloses a machine for fabricating cushioning
dunnage material for use in packaging from a continuous roll
of web material. However, Reichental fails to teach or
suggest any cushioning product transferring system located
between the machine exit or severing assembly and a work table
opening. Instead, the reference teaches that after the
dunnage material D is cut by severing means 30, the driven
exit rollers 31 (see Figure 2) convey the remaining portion of
the cut segment away from the machine (col. 6, l. 67-col. 7,
l. 2).
The examiner describes Reichental as disclosing a “work
piece conveying device” (answer, page 5) and that the
reference teaches that utilizing an “upper series and a lower
series of drive gripping rollers arranged along an arcuate
path extending between first and second positions in a
cushioning conversion machine improves the reliability of
transferring a dunnage product and, thus, was old and well
Page: Previous 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007