Appeal No. 2003-0550
Application No. 09/580,411
conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and appellant
regarding the rejection, we make reference to the examiner's
answer (Paper No. 13, mailed October 9, 2002) for the reasoning
in support of the rejection, and to appellant's brief (Paper No.
11, filed May 10, 2002) and reply brief (Paper No. 16, filed
October 24, 2002) for the arguments thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given
careful consideration to appellant's specification and claim 1,
to the applied prior art Carll reference, and to the respective
positions articulated by appellant and the examiner. As a
consequence of our review, we have made the determination which
follows.
Like the examiner, we are of the view that during a loosened
state of the threaded bolts (32) in the die cutter apparatus of
Carll, the connection between the support members (16) and the
base member (12) would be such as to permit lateral movement of
each die cutter unit (14) relative to the base member and
relative to each other through a range of 360 degrees. While it
44
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007