Appeal No. 2001-0912
Application No. 09/082,957
The Section 103 Rejection
As recognized by the examiner, here rejected claims 4 and
24 require that the predetermined angle (i.e., the predetermined
angle defined in parent claims 1 and 22 as formed by the center
line which connects the centers of rotation of the first and
second rollers with a horizontal line) “is approximately 30
degrees” whereas the corresponding angle of Urasaki’s figure
4 arrangement is approximately 90 degrees. Nevertheless, the
examiner concludes that
it would have been obvious to one of ordinary
skill in the art at the time the invention was
made to modify Urasaki to use a 30 degree angle
of the centerline between the rollers with an
expectation of similar results, because as shown
by figure 5 and column 8, lines 40-55 of Urasaki,
Urasaki contemplates also using a guide member
device with the roller placed at an angle to
the vertical, and one of ordinary skill in
the art would perform routine experimentation
to determine the optimum placement of the
rollers. [Answer, page 6.]
We do not agree with the examiner’s conclusion.
As indicated above, the predetermined angle under
consideration depends upon the disposition (i.e., ranging from
vertical to horizontal) of the center line which connects the
centers of rotation of the first and second rollers. In the
7
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007