Appeal No. 2002-1732 Application No. 09/338,238 path extending in the direction of a manufacturing line path, of a path having a “degree of continuity,” etc. As stated supra, we are not persuaded by arguments to limitations not appearing in the claims. Moreover, as we explained supra, Gilbert does provide for a “reference path,” as broadly claimed, in the line where the edge of the cloth intersects the common vertical plane. Thus, absent any convincing arguments by appellants regarding why these references would not have, or could not have, been combined in the manner set forth by the examiner, we will sustain the examiner’s rejections. With regard to claims 5 and 6, appellants argue that these claims require that the reference path represents a centerline of the manufacturing line and that Gilbert, at best, teach sensing an edge of the web. The examiner’s response is that since the reference paths of both Gilbert and Toensing would be parallel to the centerline of the manufacturing line, the reference paths of these references would also serve as references to the centerline and that “since the centerline and the reference path are both fixed and parallel; to know one is to know the other” (answer- page 6). We will not sustain the rejection of claims 5 and 6 because the examiner’s argument is not persuasive of obviousness, within -10-Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 NextLast modified: November 3, 2007