Appeal No. 2003-0595 Page 6
Application No. 09/294,354
reference to support it. This deficiency in Raudaskoski is not overcome by considering
the teachings of Krüger. Thus, the combined teachings of the references applied
against claim 1 fail to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with regard to the
subject matter recited in the claim, and the rejection of claim 1 and the claims
dependent therefrom cannot be sustained.
We reach the same result, for the same reason, with regard to independent
claims 8, 19 and 29 and the appended dependent claims, all of which require that
supporting structures be connected together by means comprising a sealing box.
Claims 7, 18 and 28 further stand rejected as being unpatentable over
Raudaskoski in view of Krüger and Schönmeier. These claims add a reel cutter to the
roll winding device and method recited in the independent claims. Although in the other
rejection the examiner cited Krüger against these same claims for its teaching of
utilizing a reel cutter, he now adds Schönmeier for the same purpose. Be that as it
may, Schönmeier also fails to alleviate the shortcoming in Raudaskoski pointed out
above, and we therefore will not sustain this rejection of claims 7, 18 and 28.
CONCLUSION
Neither rejection is sustained.
The decision of the examiner is reversed.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007