Appeal No. 2002-1732
Application No. 09/338,238
Claims 69-71 and 73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)
as anticipated by Gilbert.
Claims 69-73 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as
anticipated by Toensing.
Claims 1-34 and 41-68 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
As evidence of obviousness, the examiner cites Raney in view of
Gilbert with regard to claims 1-3, 5, 6, 13, 15, 22-34 and 68,
adding Weyenberg to this combination with regard to claims 4, 7-
12, 14, 16-21 and 41-67.
Reference is made to the briefs and answer for the
respective positions of appellants and the examiner.
OPINION
Turning, first, to the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b),
it is axiomatic that an anticipatory reference is one which
describes all of the elements of the claimed invention so as to
have placed a person of ordinary skill in the art in possession
thereof. In re Spada, 911 F.2d 205, 15 USPQ2d 1655 (Fed. Cir.
1990).
With regard to Gilbert, as it relates to independent claim
69, the examiner states that Gilbert discloses a web feeding
device including sensors 24-26 that are aligned in order to
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007