Appeal No. 2002-1788 Page 11
Application No. 09/217,667
distance while correcting the lateral position and skew angle by driving the
friction rolls (114, 116) at different speeds (V1, V2), sensing the lateral position
of the strip material (11) with the sensors (130, 132, 134), and moving the strip
material (11) in a reverse direction a predetermined distance while correcting the
lateral position and skew angle by driving the friction rolls (114, 116) at different
speeds (V1, V2). This process is repeated until the desired lateral position is
reached and the skew angle is corrected. Williams et al. ('514) also discloses
calibrating one of the sensors (130, 132, 134) relative to the other sensors. The
calibration is method includes the method of aligning set forth above and
predetermined number of forward and reverse movements are reached then a
proper calibration value is determined to compensate for any discrepancies
between the sensors.
Claim 1
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 4-5; reply brief, pp. 1-2) that claim 1 is not
anticipated since (1) Williams does not align the sheet material based on input from
only one detection sensor since Williams teaches uses a plurality of sensors (e.g.,
sensors 130, 132, 134, 126, 128) to align the sheet material; and (2) Williams does not
disclose the detection sensor disposed behind the friction wheels.
The argument presented by the appellant does not convince us that the subject
matter of claim 1 is novel over the teachings of Williams for the reasons that follow.
First, claim 1 is written in "comprising" format and recites "a detection sensor"
that generates a detection sensor signal and that the sheet material is "automatically
aligned based on said detection sensor signal." The term "comprising" is a term of art
Page: Previous 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007