Appeal No. 2000-2229
Application No. 09/126,766
Steidinger, the examiner’s primary reference, discloses an
apparatus for cutting a continuous running web 23 of paper,
plastic, fabric, or the like. As described in the reference,
10 designates generally the frame of the apparatus
which rotatably supports a blade cylinder [11] and an
impression cylinder 12. These are rotated by a gear
train 13. The numeral 14 designates the blade carried
by the blade cylinder 11. One clamping arrangement is
shown in FIG. 2. A slot 15 is cut across the axial
length of a rotating blade holding or carrying cylinder
11. On one side of the slot, an undercut 16 is
provided. A blade clamping bar 17 is slid into slot
15. A series of axially spaced springs 18 apply a
force F upward as illustrated, i.e., radially outward,
on the bar 17. . . .
The cutting or perforating blade 14 is mounted
between the bar 17 and one sidewall 19 of the slot 15.
The blade 14 is supported on its bottom edge by the bar
17 at ledge 20. The blade 14 is supported so that the
cutting edge 21 will be moved downward against the
force F of springs 18 when it contacts the anvil
cylinder 12. It is desirable that the amount of
downward movement be minimal but sufficient to absorb
the errors due to manufacturing tolerances in the
height of the cutting rules, changes in center distance
due to heating of the frames, run out of the cylinders,
etc. [column 3, lines 3 through 28].
The appellant does not dispute the examiner’s finding (see
page 3 in the final rejection) that Steidinger meets all of the
limitations in representative claim 8 except for those requiring
the knife to be a “helical” knife and the anvil cylinder to have
on its circumferential surface “a substantially rigid coating
layer.” Steidinger’s knife (blade 14) is straight (see Figures 1
and 5) and the anvil cylinder (impression cylinder 12) associated
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007