Appeal No. 2005-1224
Application No. 10/087,897
spaced apart rollers in a downward direction past the air
injector.1 According to appellants, the claimed machine "is an
important improvement over the prior art in that it provides a
very compact machine in which the roll of film material is easily
installed and the cushions flow from the machine in a downward
direction where they are most easily used or collected" (page 4
of principal brief, third paragraph).
The appealed claims stand rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as follows:
(a) claims 1, 4, 7, 16, 17 and 20 over Simhaee in view of
Skalsky;
(b) claims 2, 3, 5 and 6 over the stated combination of
references further in view of Larson;
(c) claims 13-15 over the references cited in (b) above; and
(d) claim 18 over Simhaee in view of Skalsky further in view
of Murakami.
We have thoroughly reviewed the respective positions
advanced by appellants and the examiner. In so doing, we find
1 There is no antecedent basis for the language "the
inflation tube" in the last line of claim 1. While it appears
that the language is referencing the "air injector," an
appropriate amendment should be made upon return of this
application to the examiner.
-3-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007