Appeal No. 2001-0553
Application 09/218,910
consequence of our review, we have made the determination that
the examiner’s above-noted rejections will not be sustained.
Our reasons follow.
After having reviewed the applied prior art references to
Armington and Stanford, we are of the opinion that there is no
teaching, suggestion or incentive in such references, or
otherwise specified by the examiner, which would have led one
of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’
invention to modify the stock roll cart of Armington in the
manner urged by the examiner. The examiner’s assertions
(answer, page 4) that a
dancer roller is “notoriously well known in the art to measure
the tension of a feeding web” and that a dancer roller is
“inherently going to be providing substantial uniform constant
tension as the dancing roller adjusts to accommodate different
tensions,” may generally be true, but do not provide any
reason, suggestion or motivation for attempting a modification
of the stock roll cart in Armington based on the entirely
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007