Appeal No. 2002-1788 Page 16
Application No. 09/217,667
Claims 15, 16, 18 to 21, 23 and 24
The appellants have grouped claims 14 to 16, 18 to 21, 23 and 24 as standing or
falling together.4 Thereby, in accordance with 37 CFR § 1.192(c)(7), claims 15, 16, 18
to 21, 23 and 24 fall with claim 14. Thus, it follows that the decision of the examiner to
reject claims 4 and 515, 16, 18 to 21, 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(e) is also
affirmed.
Claim 40
The appellants argue (brief, pp. 6-7) that claim 40 is not anticipated since
Williams does not disclose (1) a friction drive apparatus that reduces misalignment of
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); (2) aligning the
sheet material with the sheet material being advanced in the X-axis direction; and
(3) apparatus that aligns the strip material after the strip material is placed without being
precisely aligned.
The argument presented by the appellant does not convince us that the subject
matter of claim 40 is novel over the teachings of Williams for the reasons set forth
above with respect to claim 1. In addition, Williams specifically teaches (column 8, lines
4 See page 3 of the appellants' brief.
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007