Ex Parte Ichikawa et al - Page 2




            Appeal No. 2005-2210                                                        Παγε 2                                  
            Application No. 09/996,974                                                                                          


                                              BACKGROUND                                                                        
                  The appellants' invention relates to a method of and apparatus for transferring a                             
            plurality of rolls from a roll retainer shaft to a roll loading shaft.  Claims 1, 4 and 11 are                      
            illustrative of the invention and are reproduced in the appendix to the appellants' brief.                          


                                           The Applied Prior Art                                                                
                  The prior art references of record relied upon by the examiner in rejecting the                               
            appealed claims are:                                                                                                
            Schiltz    1,907,447    May 9, 1933                                                                                 
            Van Breen    4,290,734    Sep. 22, 1981                                                                             
            Read     4,557,515    Dec. 10, 1985                                                                                 
            Rauh     4,953,805    Sep. 4, 1990                                                                                  
            Swain     5,466,114    Nov. 14, 1995                                                                                
            Sano et al. (Sano)   07-034759    Feb. 3, 19951                                                                     
                  (Japanese patent application publication)                                                                     

                                              The Rejections                                                                    
                  Rather than reiterate the conflicting viewpoints advanced by the examiner and                                 
            the appellants regarding the below-noted rejections, we make reference to the answer                                
                                                                                                                                
                  1 We derive our understanding of this document from the computer-generated translation attached               
            to the examiner's answer.                                                                                           





















Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  Next 

Last modified: November 3, 2007