Appeal No. 2001-1765
Application No. 09/159,972
would have been suggestive of powering the drive roll 65 of
Goodwin with a clutch/brake set, not a slip clutch.
Turning now to the Hamisch document, we readily perceive
that the teaching therein of a printing apparatus (Fig. 7) would
have only been suggestive of a slip clutch for a carrier web
rewinder 180 (column 8, lines 10 through 13; Fig. 6D). The
patentee Hamisch points out (column 6, lines 36 through 48) that
a tensioning roll 136 is driven at a slightly greater peripheral
speed than the peripheral speed of a platen roll 129 (Fig. 7)
such that a carrier web CW is always under tension from the place
where a print head 111 and a platen roll 129 cooperate around a
peel roller 134 to the nip of the rolls 136, 137; with slippage
taking place between the tensioning roll 136 and the carrier web
CW. Thus, Hamisch clearly does not teach and would not have been
suggestive of driving the tensioning roll via a slip clutch.
As evident from our review of the respective patents to
Southwell and Hamisch, supra, they each disclose slip clutch
utilization, but not for driving a drive roll such as drive roll
65 of Goodwin. Thus, the evidence of obviousness before us would
not have been suggestive of the subject matter of claims 1, 3, 4,
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007