Appeal No. 2005-1932 Page 3
Application No. 10/191,311
Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and
the appellants regarding the above-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer
(mailed February 8, 2005) for the examiner's complete reasoning in support of the
rejections, and to the brief (filed November 22, 2004) for the appellants' arguments
thereagainst.
OPINION
In reaching our decision in this appeal, we have given careful consideration to
the appellants' specification and claims, to the applied prior art, and to the respective
positions articulated by the appellants and the examiner. As a consequence of our
review, we make the determinations which follow.
In the grouping of claims section of the brief (p. 6), the appellants state that
"Appellants will argue for the patentability of claim 9, with the dependent claims being
allowable therewith." In accordance with this grouping of claims and the arguments
provided in the brief, we need to review only the rejection of claim 9 to decide the
appeal on the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 set forth above.
The sole argument raised by the appellants in this appeal (brief, p. 7) is that
Baker does not teach or suggest a pressure roller having a conical roller surface for
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007