Appeal No. 2002-1732
Application No. 09/338,238
At page 7 of the principal brief, appellants assert
arguments regarding the positioning of a sensor anywhere along a
length of the manufacturing line and having a reference, separate
from the sensor, already in place, against which the sensor can
sense or measure location of an element to be sensed. Again, we
find no language in the claim corresponding to appellants’
argument and, as such, the argument is not persuasive. Even so,
the sensors, or monitoring means, 24-26, in Gilbert measure or
sense when the edge of the element, or cloth, is not in the
common vertical plane and act to make sure that the edge does
align with this plane.
Appellants’ arguments regarding position registration in
Gilbert being upstream from a location where work changes a raw
material into a transformed work piece and regarding isolated
reference points and single substrates (pages 7-8 of the
principal brief) are not persuasive as we fail to understand the
relevance of these arguments to the instant claimed subject
matter.
Similarly, at page 9 of the principal brief, appellants
argue that claim 69 provides for a “generally continuous
reference path.” We find no such language in claim 69 and, as
-5-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007