Appeal No. 2001-1763
Application 08/899,434
view of Martin (id.). Claim 12 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over the references applied against
claims 1 and 8, further in view of Kühnhold (Answer, page 5).
We affirm all of the rejections on appeal essentially for
the reasons stated in the Answer and those set forth below.
OPINION
The examiner presents findings of fact and conclusions of
law regarding Bodolay, Kanemitsu and Schroth, on pages 2-4 of the
Answer. The examiner makes additional findings and conclusions
with regard to the secondary references to Rajala, Martin, and
Kühnhold, on pages 4-6 of the Answer. Appellant’s sole argument
is that the claims relate to maintaining the tension of the tape
during sealing, and this “claimed tensioning is non-obvious over
all the cited references” (Brief, page 6).
This argument is not persuasive. As correctly argued by the
examiner, appellant is arguing a limitation which is not claimed
(Answer, page 6). The only recitation of “tension” in the claims
is the “means for delivering tensioned tape and fastener profile
from said tape dispensing means” (see claim 1; Answer, page 6).
However, this recitation refers to the tape before cutting (i.e.,
before the tape advances to the tape cutter assembly; see claim 1
and page 6 of the Answer). There is no language in claim 1 on
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007