Appeal No. 2004-1831
Application No. 09/338,095
We refer to the brief and to the answer for a complete
discussion of the opposing viewpoints expressed by the appellants
and by the examiner concerning the above noted rejections.
OPINION
For the reasons set forth below, we cannot sustain any of
the rejections advanced by the examiner on this appeal.
As correctly argued by the appellants and acknowledged by
the examiner, claim 3 distinguishes over Yoshino by requiring “a
first distal portion having said first elongate edge of said
sheet and extending for a distance less than said predetermined
width [of the roll] . . . .” In Yoshino, the distal portion
extends completely across the roll width as clearly shown in
Figure 1 of the patent. According to the examiner, it would have
been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art “to vary the
length of the distal portion, since the length of the distal
portion would be readily determined through routine optimization
by one having ordinary skill in the art depending on the desired
end result as shown by Yoshino” (answer, page 4). This
obviousness conclusion is not well taken.
Contrary to the examiner’s apparent belief, the Yoshino
patent contains no teaching or suggestion that the distal portion
length was recognized as a result effective variable. For this
4
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007