Appeal No. 2001-0553
Application 09/218,910
combination of Armington and Stanford. Thus, the examiner’s
rejection of claims 26 through 29 will also not be sustained.
In accordance with the foregoing, the decision of the
examiner rejecting claims 1 through 30 of the present
application under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) is reversed.
We additionally find it necessary to REMAND this
application to the examiner for a decision on the record as to
whether or not a rejection of one or more of the claims on
appeal in this case would be appropriate based on Armington
(4,650,456) in view of the Ratzel patent (5,713,825) cited by
the examiner in the Office action mailed December 27, 1999
(Paper No. 5), but not previously applied. More particularly,
the examiner should determine if it would have been obvious to
one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of appellants’
invention to provide the supply roll cart of Armington with a
dancer (damper) roller assembly like that seen at (70, 71) of
Ratzel to help in maintaining a greater uniformity of tension
on the sheet material being fed from the cart, or
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007