Appeal No. 1999-0233
Application No. 08/787,893
which is indicated to be cut with high accuracy (column 6, lines
1 and 2), is stacked one upon the other in the piling section 48
(Fig. 1). Since a core wound paper product, as now claimed,
would not have been suggested by the Matsumoto patent, the
rejection cannot be sustained.
REMAND TO THE EXAMINER
We remand this application to the examiner to fully consider
each of the following matters.
1. The underlying disclosure should be assessed to determine if
descriptive support (literal or implicit) exists for the process
limitation in claim 2 reciting indicia and lines of termination
being “simultaneously impartable”, as required by 35 U.S.C.
§ 112, first paragraph.
2. The preamble portion (a “sheet”) of each of claims 3 through
8, line 1, is inconsistent with parent claim 2, line 1, setting
forth a “core wound paper product.”
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007