Appeal No. 2001-1381
Application 08/826,741
of its knives 17-20 during the perforating or severing
operation” (decision, page 8). Even if the appellants’ bald
assertion that Rosenleaf’s knives easily slice through the
plaster board web is taken at face value, it simply does not
follow that the knives fail to provide at least some support
to the web. The nature of plaster board and the engagement of
the knives with the bottom thereof provide reasonable factual
support for concluding that the knives, and hence the rotor or
roller 16 mounting the knives, support the web however
fleetingly. Contrary to the appellants’ contention, there is
nothing in claims 1 and 26 or in the ordinary and accustomed
meaning of the term “support” which excludes the relative
vertical movement between Rosenleaf’s knives and the web which
admittedly occurs during the perforating or severing
operation. Simply put, this argument, and the
appellants’ position as a whole that Rosenleaf’s rotor 16 does
not respond to the web supporting limitations in claims 1 and
26, rest on an improper attempt to read limitations from the
specification into these claims.
5
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007