Appeal No. 2002-1788 Page 15
Application No. 09/217,667
Claim 14
The appellants argue (brief, p. 6; reply brief, pp. 1-2) that claim 14 is not
anticipated since (1) Williams does not disclose aligning the strip 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); and (2) Williams does not disclose aligning the
strip material with respect to the detection sensor while steering the strip material.
The argument presented by the appellant does not convince us that the subject
matter of claim 14 is novel over the teachings of Williams for the reasons set forth
above with respect to claim 1. In addition, Williams does align the strip material (e.g.,
sheet 11 ) with respect to the detection sensor (i.e., sensor 130) while steering the strip
material (by controlling the drive to each drive nip 114 and 116 so as to align the sheet
11).
For the reasons set forth above, the decision of the examiner to reject claim 14
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is affirmed.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007