Appeal No. 2000-0909
Application No. 08/784,752
The appellant argues (main brief, pp. 8-10 and reply
brief, p. 3) that there is no disclosure in Nyfeler that the
control 31 utilizes the first sensor 37 to control the speed
of the carrier 5 “in the manner to move the carrier within the
transfer station with a velocity that is equal to that of the
substrate but
otherwise moves the carrier in a manner that advances
significantly less of the carrier than the substrate through
the transfer station between the repetitive instances of said
at least one contact area pressing the carrier against the
substrate” as required by claim 33. We disagree.
Nyfeler states that “[t]he control arrangement 31
controls the speed of rotation of the drive 41 in dependence
on the position of the carriage 40 and the signals from the
sensors 37 and 38 and the rotary senders 39 and 39'” (col. 8,
ll. 20-24). Thus, Nyfeler explicitly teaches that the control
arrangement 31 controls the speed of rotation of the drive 41
and, thus, the speed of the carriage 40 and carrier 5 in
14
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007