Ex Parte YEO et al - Page 19




              Appeal No. 2002-1788                                                               Page 19                
              Application No. 09/217,667                                                                                


              The obviousness rejection                                                                                 
                     We sustain the rejection of claims 10, 13, 17 and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103.                        


                     In the obviousness rejection before us in this appeal, the examiner stated                         
              (answer, pp. 4-5):                                                                                        
                            With respect to claims 10 and 17, Williams et al. ('514), as advanced                       
                     above, do not disclose a positioning the first sensor along an edge of a stripe                    
                     disposed on the underside of the strip material. The use of a stripe or other                      
                     indicia to locate and align strip material is well known. It would have been                       
                     obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide Williams et al. ('514) with strip           
                     material with a stripe and align the sensors to sense the position of the stripe                   
                     when the edge of the material is not detectable with the optical sensors, i.e. with                
                     clear translucent strip material.                                                                  
                            With respect to claims 13 and 22, Williams et al. ('514), as advanced                       
                     above, do not disclose a sensor stop for positioning said longitudinal edge of                     
                     said strip material (11). Guides or stops for guiding and aligning a first edge of a               
                     strip material are well known. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill                 
                     in the art to provide Williams et al. ('514) with sensor stops for aligning the strip              
                     material over the sensors to allow the sensors to work properly.                                   


                     The appellant argues (brief, p. 9) that                                                            
                            Claims 10 and 13 depend from Claim 1 and recite additional limitations                      
                     thereto. Williams does not render Claims 10 and 13 of the present invention                        
                     obvious since Williams does not teach or even suggest aligning the sheet                           
                     material with respect to a detection sensor based on the detection sensor signal.                  
                     Claims 10 and 13 of the present invention, in combination with Claim 1,                            
                     specifically recite that the detection sensor generates a detection sensor signal                  
                     that is received by the processor to automatically align the strip material with                   
                     respect to the feed path prior to a work operation based on the detection sensor                   
                     signal. Rather, Williams teaches that five sensors (130, 132, 134, 126, 128)                       
                     disposed at various locations are used to align the sheet material. Therefore,                     







Page:  Previous  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007