Appeal No. 2001-1417
Application No. 09/042,520
We have also reviewed the disclosure of Goldberg applied by
the Examiner to address the form cylinder preheating unit
limitations of dependent claim 22. We find, nothing, however in
the disclosure of Goldberg which would overcome the deficiencies
of Bronstein, Ketley, Nishioka, and Williams discussed supra.
In view of the above discussion, it is our view that, since
all of the limitations of the appealed claims are not taught or
suggested by the applied prior art references, the Examiner has
not established a prima facie case of obviousness. Accordingly,
the Examiner’s 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection of independent claim
1, as well as claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10-16, and 18-24 dependent
thereon, is not sustained.
-8–
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007