Appeal No. 2001-1381
Application 08/826,741
cradle frame 112 is lowered out of the orbit of the
knives 17-20. This was not the issue of the Final
Rejection [page 3].
The foregoing takes great liberties with what we actually
stated. As pointed out on page 6 in the decision, the
appellants did not challenge the propriety of the proposed
combination of Rosenleaf and Sato. Hence, we found it
unnecessary to comment on same, and did not in fact do so. As
indicated above, the issue on appeal with respect to claims 1
and 26 was, and is, whether the combined teachings of
Rosenleaf and Sato respond to the base roll web-supporting
limitations in these claims. Given Rosenleaf’s status as the
primary reference in the proposed combination and the
character of the unchallenged modifications
advanced by the examiner in view of Sato, this question boils
down to whether Rosenleaf’s rotor 16 meets the subject
limitations. The examiner’s position that rotor 16 does meet
these limitations appears in both the final rejection and
answer (Paper Nos. 17 and 20).
As for the merits of the examiner’s determination, we
remain of the view that “the web passing through Rosenleaf’s
machine is necessarily supported by the lower rotor 16 via one
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007