Appeal No. 2005-1348
Application No. 09/534,466
We also will not sustain the rejection of claims 3-5, 8, and
9 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jurkewitz because of the
deficiencies noted supra with regard to the increase and decrease
of the infeed tension responsive to a signal indicating a change
in the printing mode from/to a white web mode. The examiner has
not shown that this would have been obvious in view of Jurkewitz.
Similarly, we will not sustain the rejection of claim 7
under 35 U.S.C. § 103 because the added reference to Sainio does
not provide for the deficiencies of Jurkewitz regarding the lack
of an under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Jurkewitz because of the
deficiencies noted supra with regard to the increase and decrease
of the infeed tension responsive to a signal indicating a change
in the printing mode from/to a white web mode.
We now turn to the rejection of claims 1, 13, and 15-17
under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) as anticipated by Huth.
At the outset, we note that although the statement of
rejection includes claims 15-17, it does not include claim 14
from which claim 15 depends. Since dependent claim 15, by
definition, includes the limitations of claim 14 from which it
depends, we will presume that the examiner intended to reject
claims 1 and 13-17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) over Huth.
-8-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007