Appeal No. 2002-1143
Application No. 09/085,933
Reference is made to appellant’s main and reply briefs (Paper
Nos. 16 and 19) and to the examiner’s answer (Paper No. 17) for the
respective positions of appellant and the examiner regarding the
merits of this rejection.
Discussion
With reference of Figures 4 and 8, Shiba pertains to a guide
roller for a printing press comprising a series of larger diameter
peripheral portions 103 and smaller diameter peripheral portions
104 arranged in alternating fashion along the length of the roller.
As we understand it, it is the examiner’s position (answer, page 5)
that it would have been obvious to form the roller of Shiba as an
integral structure, and thereby arrive at the subject matter of
claim 21.2
Among the points of arguments raised by appellant3 in the main
and reply briefs is the argument that the smaller diameter portions
104 of Shiba alternately provided between the larger diameter
portions 103 do not constitutes annular slots. We find this
argument to be persuasive. From our perspective, one of ordinary
2It appears to us that Shiba discloses that the roller may
be formed as an integral structure (see column 9, line 63,
through column 10, line 4, of Shiba), a position that appellant
seems to agree with (reply brief, page 11, third full paragraph).
3See, for example, page 8, lines 1-16, of the reply brief.
3
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007