Appeal No. 2001-0304 Page 9
Application No. 09/168,358
suggested to one skilled in the art at the time of appellants’ invention providing an
automatic controller for adjusting the inclination of the clamping device of Petersson, in
response to the measured inclination registered by the inclination sensor, to ensure that
the paper roll is lowered in the true vertical (i.e., untilted with respect to gravity) position,
thus avoiding edge damage which might otherwise result from operator error.
Appellants’ arguments on pages 9 and 10 of the brief and pages 4 and 5 of the
reply brief that the modification proposed by the examiner would create a dynamic
disturbance problem and, thus, would not have been considered by one skilled in the art
are not well taken. Nothing in the proposed modification requires that the automatic
inclination adjustment be performed during conditions such as acceleration, braking or
travel over uneven surfaces which appellants allege could result in dynamic disturbances.
In fact, Auramo teaches automatic adjustment only during lifting and lowering of the load
and appears to be primarily concerned with proper alignment during lowering, thereby
suggesting that automatic adjustment may only be needed or desired during lowering.
For the foregoing reasons, we perceive no error in the examiner’s determination of
obviousness of the subject matter of claim 21. We shall thus sustain rejection (3).
CONCLUSION
To summarize, the decision of the examiner to reject claims 20 and 21 under 35
U.S.C. § 103 is reversed as to claim 20 and affirmed as to claim 21.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007