Appeal No. 2002-1788 Page 13
Application No. 09/217,667
first and second friction wheels with respect to direction of motion of the strip material.
With that understanding, it is clear to us that Williams' sensor 130 is upstream from the
nips 114 and 116 (i.e., the friction wheels) with respect to direction of motion of the
sheet material as clearly shown in Figure 2.
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
Claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12
The appellants have grouped claims 1, 2, 6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 as standing or falling
together.3 Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 2, 6, 7, 9, 11 and
12 fall with claim 1. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to reject claims 2,
6, 7, 9, 11 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is also affirmed.
Claim 3
The appellants argue (brief, p. 6; reply brief, p. 2) that claim 3 is not anticipated
since Williams does not teach a second sensor disposed on an opposite side of the
friction wheels generating a second sensor signal for automatically align the strip
3 See page 3 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007