Appeal No. 2002-1732
Application No. 09/338,238
adjust the web supports 21-23 so as to keep the edges of the webs
in a common vertical plane and such disclosure anticipates the
subject matter of claim 69.
The examiner’s rationale appears reasonable to us and, in
the absence of any convincing evidence to the contrary, we hold
that the examiner has presented a prima facie case of
anticipation.
It is appellants’ view that Gilbert does not disclose, or
even mention, a “reference path” as claimed. While it may be
true that Gilbert does not use the term, “reference path” in haec
verba, it appears reasonable to us that the edge of the web of
cloth in Gilbert, being maintained in a common vertical plane, as
explained at column 2, lines 67-71, is kept on a “reference path”
defined by the common vertical plane.
Appellants argues that their reference path contemplates a
degree of continuity of the reference element along a direction
of advance of the elements on which work is being performed
(principal brief-page 6). We find nothing in claim 69 regarding
a “degree of continuity” but even so, there is a certain degree
of continuity of the edge of the cloth in Gilbert along a
direction of advance (e.g., left to right in Gilbert’s Figure 1)
of the cloth upon which work is being performed.
-4-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007