Appeal No. 2001-2616
Application No. 09/101,704
machine speed, wherein the winding tubes are driven by a core
drive of a winding device.
In rejecting appellant’s claims under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a),
the examiner relies upon the combined teachings of DE-‘847 and
Orbach. As recognized by the examiner (answer, pages 4 and 5)
the rolling, winding, and cutting machine of DE-’847 lacks a
longitudinal cutter, a second support roll, and disks that are
adjustable. From our perspective, even if one having5
ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to rework
the machine of DE-’847 in light of the teaching of Orbach of
slitting a web and winding onto two support rolls, we 6
perceive no suggestion whatsoever in the evidence before us
5Based upon the examiner’s statements (answer, pages 4
and 7), it appears that the examiner may have viewed the disks
of DE-’847 as inherently adjustable. We discern no basis for
this inherency determination in the DE-’847 teaching.
Nevertheless, the examiner also indicates (answer, page 5)
that it would have been obvious to make the disks of DE-’847
adjustable.
6As set forth on page 6 of the translation of DE-’847,
the installation of a longitudinal cutting device also allows
the width of the material web to be subdivided in such a way
that a plurality of finished rolls of different widths can be
made.
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007