Appeal No. 1999-2795
Application 09/046,111
thus, the obviousness rejection of claims 2, 4, 5, and 7 is
reversed.
Claim 8
Claim 8 recites "a crack in the carrier web." The
crack is clearly a structural limitation. A "crack" is
defined as "a narrow break : FISSURE," Webster's. We find
that the rectangular or V-shaped notches in Smith are not
cracks because they are not narrow breaks in the web. The
Examiner erred in finding that the "hole" in Smith is a
"crack" because "both a crack and a hole have the same
structural function (i.e. enable light to pass through to
detect discontinuity of a web)" (EA4). Again, it is the
structure, not the function of the structure which is at
issue. While it is true that a hole and a crack are both
forms of discontinuities that may be detected, this does not
mean that a hole is the same thing as a crack. We further
disagree with the Examiner's finding that "the hole of
Smith, which clearly can be 'a narrow opening' reads on the
claimed 'crack'" (EA4) because the hole (or notch) in Smith
is not shown to be a narrow opening in any reasonable
- 7 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007