Appeal No. 2003-1303 8
Application No. 09/351,166
The 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) rejection
The examiner concedes that Hakala does not disclosure or suggest a support
device coupled to the drilling apparatus that is adapted to press against the cylinder to
be drilled, whereby tangential forces are exerted on the adjacent cylinder by the drilling
apparatus, as called for in independent claims 10 and 12, and the similar limitations
appearing in claims 4 and 7. The examiner turns to Parviainen for a teaching of this
feature.
Parviainen is directed to a device for drilling holes in a shell of a paper machine,
and more particularly, to an improvement over machines for drilling holes of the type
disclosed in Hakala (col. 1, line 28 through col. 2, line 27). In Parviainen the drilling
device is supported between a pair of adjacent cylinders 10 and above a third cylinder
11 to be drilled, and is guided along the length of the cylinder to be drilled by means of
wheels 23A-23B on the ends of telescoping support arms that directly contact the
adjacent cylinders and/or cylinder to be drilled (col. 3, lines 4-20). Thus, in Parviainen
the drilling device does not require separate guides such as the guides 12a, 12b used
in Hakala for guiding the drilling device along the length of the cylinder to be drilled.
According to Parviainen, this mounting arrangement reduces the amount of time
required to mount the drilling device on the supporting cylinders (col. 2, line 60-67).
According to the examiner, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007