Appeal No. 2001-0560 Page 3
Application No. 08/603,719
in support of the rejection and to the brief and reply brief
(Paper Nos. 21 and 23) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to the appellants' specification and
claims, to the applied prior art references, and to the
respective positions articulated by the appellants and the
examiner. As a consequence of our review, we make the
determinations which follow.
Each of claims 99 and 100, the only independent claims on
appeal, recites, inter alia, a step of “continuously supplying
a plurality of [at least two (claim 100)] elongated retainer
elements” to said continuously moving bundle. Appellants
argue on page 4 of their brief that Heymann provides no
teaching or suggestion to use more than one retaining element,
as recited in appellants’ claims. Indeed, Heymann discloses a
method of stabilizing a round composite of linear structures 1
(polyamide ropes) between paired guide rollers 3 and 4 with
the aid of a mesh structure (translation, page 7) and further
teaches that the mesh structure consists of only one thread
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007