Appeal No. 2005-1932 Page 4
Application No. 10/191,311
engaging the workpiece as recited in claim 9.2 Specifically, the appellants argue that (1)
Baker's conical outer surface 28 of roller 24 does not engage the workpiece; (2) Baker's
narrow peripheral portion 30, which does engage the workpiece, is not part of the
conical surface 28; and (3) Baker's narrow peripheral portion 30 contacts the workpiece
at a point, not along a plane as is accomplished by the claimed conical roller surface.
The examiner's response (answer, p. 4) to this argument is that (1) Baker's
narrow peripheral portion 30 is part of the conical surface 28; and (2) Baker's narrow
peripheral portion 30 while narrower than the conical surface 18 shown in Figure 1 of
the appellants' invention has an area that provides pressure along a plane on the
workpiece.
Baker's invention relates to improvements in wallpaper cutters, particularly
suitable for use in trimming wallpaper during hanging thereof, although the device is
also suitable for cutting other types of paper, cloth, cardboard, and the like. One object
of Baker's invention was to provide a cutter with guide rollers so oriented to a blade
2The appellants have not contested the examiner's combination of AAPA and
Baker. Instead, the appellants believe that such a combination does not result in the
subject matter of claim 9 due to deficiencies in the teachings of Baker.
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007