Appeal No. 2002-1732
Application No. 09/338,238
appellant could have made but chose not to make in the brief have
not been considered and are deemed to be waived [see 37 CFR 1.192
(a)].
The examiner contends that Raney shows cameras 140, 142 and
143 from which images are compared with reference image data to
adjust the relative positions of webs 22, 24 and 26, but that
Raney does not show aligning the webs with respect to a machine
direction reference path. The examiner then turns to Gilbert for
a web feeding device including sensors 24-26 that are aligned in
order to adjust the web supports 21-23 transverse to the machine
direction to keep the edges of the webs in a common vertical
plane.
The examiner concludes that it would have been obvious to
modify the device of Raney with the teachings of Gilbert so that
the edges of the webs are aligned with respect to a common
vertical plane so that the edges are aligned with each other and
with the machine (answer-page 4).
We will sustain the rejection of claims 1-4 and 8-16 under
35 U.S.C. § 103 because appellants do not argue or question the
combinability of the references in the manner suggested by the
examiner. Rather, appellants merely repeat their arguments
alleging no teaching by the references of a reference path, of a
-9-
Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007