Appeal No. 2000-1639
Application No. 08/923,449
slower than conveyor (28) based on the teachings of Craemer, we
will not sustain the examiner’s rejection.
Jeschke is similar to appellant’s apparatus in that it
pertains to an apparatus for folding a paper web and cutting it
into individual copies that are then fed to a downstream
shingling conveyor. Of particular concern to Jeschke is the
configuration and operation of the cross cutting unit (11, 12),
the details of which are not pertinent to the obviousness issues
before us.
In contrast, Craemer pertains to an apparatus for making a
corrugated paperboard product. Craemer’s corrugator includes a
double facer machine (12), a shear knife (14), a slitter-scorer
(16), a cut-off (18), a downstream shingling conveyor comprising
a first conveyor (26) and a second conveyor (28), and a sheet
stacker (not shown), in that order. In the “BACKGROUND” section
of the specification, Craemer describes a deficiency of prior art
corrugators as follows:
Upon completion of one production order, it is
conventional to sever the web and create a large gap to
thereby facilitate adjustments of the slitter-scorer
and/or cut-off. The gap is conventionally attained by
substantially decreasing the speed of the double facer
machine while the web section is processed at the
previous speed of the double facer machine. . . .
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007