Appeal No. 2003-0595 Page 2
Application No. 09/294,354
BACKGROUND
The appellant's invention relates to a roll winding device. An understanding of
the invention can be derived from a reading of exemplary claim 1, which has been
reproduced below.
The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the
appealed claims are:
Schönmeier et al. (Schönmeier) 5,478,026 Dec. 26, 1995
Raudaskoski et al. (Raudaskoski) 5,492,287 Feb. 20, 1996
Krüger et al. (Krüger) 5,848,760 Dec. 15, 1998
The standing rejections before us are:
(1) Claims 1, 2, 7-12, 18-22, 28-33 and 39-42 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being
unpatentable over Raudaskoski in view of Krüger.
(2) Claims 7, 18 and 28 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over
Raudaskoski in view of Krüger and Schönmeier.
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellant regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the Answer
(Paper No. 23) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the rejections, and
to the Supplemental Brief (Paper No. 19) and Reply Brief (Paper No. 24) for the
appellant's arguments thereagainst.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007