Appeal No. 2004-1602
Application No. 09/954,766
arm and the particular amount of pivoting movement (Brief, page
12). However, as discussed above with respect to the rejection
under section 102(b), Rodriguez teaches an obtuse angle between
sections of the bellcrank arm 270, as well as pivotal movement (see
Figure 9). We note that appellants have failed to establish any
criticality for the particular values of the obtuse angle or the
amount of pivotal movement. See In re Woodruff, supra.
With regard to the rejection of claims 4 and 5, appellants
argue that even if Orii teaches a snubber in the form of a roller,
this reference cannot cure the deficiencies of Rodriguez (Brief,
paragraph bridging pages 9-10). This argument is not persuasive
for reasons discussed above.
Appellants argue that Rodrigues “teaches away” from the
present invention by requiring a plurality of large diameter coils
placed in a fixed feeding position (Brief, page 10). This argument
is not well taken since claims 4 and 5 do not exclude any of these
limitations, and appellants have not demonstrated how this
disclosure of Rodriguez “teaches away” from the invention as
claimed.
Appellants argue that Orii is directed to uncoiling a reel
which “teaches away” from the coil reel hold down device of the
present invention, and further this reference fails to disclose a
8
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007