Appeal No. 1999-2132 Page 14
Application No. 08/672,856
with the appellants that the applied prior art provides no
suggestion to place such rollers downstream of the severing
means 30. Even if a suggestion to do so did exist, we fail to
understand how the rollers disclosed in Reichental would be
capable of transferring a pad from a cushioning conversion
machine without destroying the already formed pad.
Specifically, we do not understand and the examiner has not
explained how a finished pad, such as shown in Reichental’s
Figure 8, could be passed through embossing rollers 22,
separating rollers 25 and combining rollers 26 without
destroying the finished pad and/or jamming or destroying the
various pairs of rollers.
In view of the above, we will not sustain the standing §
103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 5 through 10, 12, 13, 20 and 21
based on Tekavec in view of Reichental.
SUMMARY
The rejection of claims 1 through 13, 20 and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over Tekavec in view of
Mistyurik is reversed.
Page: Previous 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007