Appeal No. 2001-1381
Application 08/826,741
[t]he knives easily slice through [Rosenleaf’s]
plaster board [web] without giving any support to
the plaster board.
As noted in Appellant’s [sic] Reply Brief at
page 2, if a knife 17-20 on the rotor 16 of
Rosenleaf cuts or perforates the plaster board, it
cannot be said that the knife also supports the
plaster board. The terms “cutting” and
“perforating” each means that there is a relative
[vertical] movement between the knife and the
plaster board. The term “support” means that there
is no relative [vertical] movement between the knife
and the plaster board.
As soon as a knife 17-20 of Rosenleaf contacts
the web of plaster board, the cutting edge of the
knife (shown serrated in Fig 1) cuts into the
plaster board. As such, the knife and particularly
the serrated knife edge cannot support the web
[request, page 4].
Before addressing the substance of this argument, we find
it necessary to remark on the following passage in the
appellants’ request:
[i]t appears that the decision has not agreed
with the Examiner’s reasons for rejecting claims 1
and 26 as being unpatentable over Rosenleaf in view
of Sato. That is to say, the BPAI agrees that it
would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill
in the art to eliminate the cradle frame 112 of
Rosenleaf and to provide the Rosenleaf device with a
base roll moving means for moving the base roll
vertically out of position with the upper perforator
roll during a non-cutting phase in order to insure
that there is no interference between the lower base
roll and the web. Instead, the decision appears to
hold that Rosenleaf alone teaches that the plaster
board is supported by the rotor 16 during a
perforating or cutting operation, i.e. when the
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007