Appeal No. 2001-1381
Application 08/826,741
Patent No. 2,345,072 to Rosenleaf et al. (Rosenleaf) in view
of U.S. Patent No. 5,207,138 to Sato et al. (Sato). 1
At issue is whether the combined teachings of Rosenleaf
and Sato would have suggested a machine meeting the
limitations in claims 1 and 26 requiring a base roll for
supporting the conveyed web during passage through the
perforating or severing station. In the decision, we
concluded that they would “because the web passing through
Rosenleaf’s machine is necessarily supported by the lower
rotor [base roll] 16 via one of its knives 17-20 during the
perforating or severing operation . . . . In this regard,
the limitations at issue do not require direct contact between
the base roll and the conveyed web” (page 8). Essentially
repeating arguments earlier made in their briefs, the
appellants dispute that the web passing though the Rosenleaf
machine is so supported by rotor 16. According to the
appellants,
1In the decision, we also sustained the examiner’s 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of dependent claims 3, 9 through 11,
13, 28 and 31 through 34 as being unpatentable over Rosenleaf
in view of Sato.
2
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007