Appeal No. 2002-1222
Application 09/049,908
points out that Anderson does not specifically disclose the details of an unwind stand system
which would be encompassed by the appealed claims (answer, e.g., page 7). We find that the
sole description of an unwind system in Anderson is the illustration of roll stand 10 in Anderson
Fig. 1. On this record, we further find that one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably
inferred from Anderson Fig. 1 that roll stand 10 comprises a frame having arms at each end to
hold a parent roll and a centrally located shaft to rotate the frame with respect to the roll stand in
order to move the two parent rolls so held to different positions around the roll stand.2 There is
no teaching or inference in Anderson that roll stand 10 is used in combination with a core
placement table.
The unwind or roll stand structures shown in the other applied references which
reasonably appear to correspond to roll stand 10 of Anderson Fig. 1 are found in Sohma and
Focke. In Sohma, the holding member for paper roll cores has spaced apart arms 4 and 5 which
hold three parent rolls and rotate about shaft 3 to place the parent rolls, that are in different
unwound states, into different positions in order to facilitate continuously advancing a web that
involves splicing a web from a second parent roll to a web from a first parent roll, as shown in
Sohma FIGs. 1, 2 and 4 and explained in Sohma cols. 3-5. In Focke, the reel support 12 has
arms 13 and 14 rotating around central bearing 15 to place parent rolls 18 and 19, in different
unwound states, into different positions in order to facilitate continuously advancing a web that
involves connecting a web from a second parent roll to a web from a first parent roll, as shown in
Focke FIGs. 1-3 and 7 and explained in Focke cols. 3-8.
We are of the view that reel support 12 of Focke more closely resembles the structure of
Anderson roll stand 10 than the holding member of Sohma, although the examiner relies on
Sohma to show an unwind stand (answer, e.g., pages 7 and 11). We find no disclosure in either
Focke or Sohma that a core placement table which rotatably supports the partially unwound first
parent roll is used with the unwind stand disclosed therein. The examiner acknowledges the
2 It is well settled that a reference stands for all of the specific teachings thereof as well as the
inferences one of ordinary skill in this art would have reasonably been expected to draw
therefrom, see In re Fritch, 972 F.2d 1260, 1264-65, 23 USPQ2d 1780, 1782-83 (Fed. Cir.
1992); In re Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968), presuming skill on
the part of this person. In re Sovish, 769 F.2d 738, 743, 226 USPQ 771, 774 (Fed. Cir. 1985).
- 5 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007