Appeal No. 2002-1222
Application 09/049,908
same with respect to Sohma and relies on Seki for this feature, alleging that Seki is “just one
example of an apparatus for providing a continuous web of paper by unwinding paper rolls that
are spliced in a high-speed operation where core placement tables are utilized,” but does not
identify the component of the structure in this reference which serves as such a core placement
table (answer, e.g., pages 8 and 13-14).
We find that in the apparatus of Seki, the unwind stand or web feeding station 11 has two
spaced apart sets of arms 15a and 15b which rotate around respective shafts 21 and 21 and hold
respective web parent rolls 3a and 3b, with the end of the operation of bonding the leading edge
of web from parent roll 3b to the running web from parent roll 3a described as
[u]pon the stopping of the roll of . . . [web parent roll] 3a and disconnection from the
feeding service the roll 3a is then removed out of the roll carrying arms 15a and then
carried out of the machine by using the roll carry-out conveyor 12. At the same time,
the roll carrying arms 15a are rotated clockwise in swinging motion as view in FIG. 1
so that the roll of . . . [web parent roll] 3c waiting for service upon the rolling carrier
13 is then loaded thereupon . . . . [Seki FIG. 1 and cols. 3-5, particularly col. 4, line
56, to col. 5, line 6; see also col. 2, line 51, to col. 3, line 21, particularly col. 3, lines
13-21.]
The difficulty that we have with the examiner’s reliance on Seki is that roll carry-out
conveyor 12 is not a core placement table that rotatably supports the partially unwound first
parent roll, that is, functions with respect to the continued unwinding of a web parent roll prior to
the bonding or splicing the web of a second parent roll to the web of a first parent roll as required
by appealed claim 1 and the claims dependent thereon. We find no other disclosure in this
reference which teaches or suggests such a core placement table. In considering the other applied
references, we note that Mobley is similar to Seki in disclosing that “exhausted roll shaft 47”
drops into support 50 as seen from Mobley FIGs. 4 and 5 (cols. 1-2).
Thus, we determine that the examiner’s position that prima facie the combination of an
unwind stand and a core placement table specified in appealed claims 1, 3, 5 and 7 would have
been taught to one of ordinary skill by the combined teachings of the applied references is not
supported by substantial evidence in the references, separately or in combination. The
examiner’s unsupported allegation that “[i]t is well known in the splicing art to use a core
placement table for splicing” (answer, page 13) does not provide such evidence, particularly in
light of the challenge thereof by appellants (reply brief, page 2). See generally, In re Ahlert, 424
- 6 -
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007